Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Hospital-acquired Infections

Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the (a) incidence and (b) cost to the NHS of hospital-acquired infection in the last period for which figures are available.

John Reid: Because we were the first Government to introduce mandatory surveillance of the incidence of hospital-acquired infections, previous data are not as robust as we would wish. However, previous surveys and estimates indicate that the proportion of patients who acquire an infection in hospital is around 9 per cent., which is largely unchanged from a survey conducted 24 years ago in 1980. The rates of infection in most other European countries range between 6 and 10 per cent. The best available estimate is that hospital-acquired infections cost the NHS £1 billion a year.

Ann Winterton: Hospital-acquired infection is currently a massive problem in this country, and the Government's solution is to reintroduce the matron. Will the Secretary of State confirm that matrons will be taken from experienced nursing staff, will be properly trained and will therefore have the authority and professional standing to close wards for thorough cleaning, to recruit additional infection-control nursing staff and to train others in infection control? Does he agree that if those safeguards are not introduced, the matron's charter will be yet another piece of meaningless spin, which will be costly for patients?

John Reid: I regret the hon. Lady's choice of last sentence. I accept that hospital-acquired infections are a major challenge for the NHS and for all of us. I do not regard the matter as a party-political issue, which is why I invited the Conservative spokesman, who has accepted the invitation, to discuss the matter and share ideas and proposals. I confirm that we will examine all proposals.
	It is not true that we have been involved in spin. We are the first Government to collect the data, which are admittedly limited—it is difficult to obtain some data for international as well as domestic reasons. However, we are passing power to front-line staff and the chief nursing officer has been put in charge. We want to make sure that nurses and matrons are in control of not only hygiene, but hospital cleaning, and that they are involved in writing up contracts. Hospital-acquired infections are a long-standing, complex issue, and I hope that all hon. Members share my determination to tackle them.

Joan Ruddock: Last week, I visited three wards in Lewisham hospital, each of which contained two patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Those patients had entered the hospital with the condition. Has my right hon. Friend any advice on community action to try to reduce the incidence of that condition and, in particular, for nursing homes, where far too many elderly people may unfortunately be subject to that infection?

John Reid: My hon. Friend is right. Staphylococci are present outside hospitals, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus is, of course, the most difficult Staphylococci to tackle. MRSA is dangerous in hospitals because the people there are, by definition, ill, weak and, in many cases, elderly, and it is so dangerous for vulnerable patients. We will examine all ways in which to tackle MRSA, and those areas of hospitals where people are vulnerable, critical or elderly are key.
	There are many reasons why it is difficult to overcome MRSA. We must tackle issues such as shortages of trained staff, old buildings with single rooms, high capacity, an emphasis on cost rather than cleaning and the bacteria's immunity. New hospitals, more staff, single rooms and hospital design are important, as well as hygiene training, infection-control nurses on the ground and control by front-line staff. All those measures are available, along with scientific research. We are tackling all those issues, and I hope that all hon. Members who have any ideas about how to put those measures into practice—in some ways, MRSA is the biggest challenge that we face in our hospitals—will join us. I welcome all ideas from all quarters.

Michael Spicer: Why has the incidence of MRSA increased so quickly in recent years?

John Reid: We estimate that the rate has risen by about 5 per cent. over the past couple of years, so the increase is about 2.5 per cent. a year. [Interruption.] We have collected data on bloodstream bacteria MRSA only for the past couple of years. The data are limited, but we have never collected them before.
	As far as we can see, the incidence of MRSA is rising, and it is a major problem for us, but I issue two pleas to hon. Members to put this in proportion. First, it is not rising at 100 per cent. per annum, as some newspapers are suggesting. Secondly, the overall rate of hospital-acquired infections, which is estimated to be about 9 per cent., is roughly the same as 25 years ago, and probably 50 years ago, although we do not have the empirical data to verify that. There is no internationally-classifiable coding for deaths caused specifically by bacteria-led MRSA. Another reason why our data collection is less adequate than I would like is that MRSA is normally a contributory factor and is often not cited on death certificates. We want to see improvements in that respect, as well.

Andrew Lansley: Last August, hospital cleanliness scores were published. This year they have not been published. Why not?

John Reid: That matter has been passed to the Healthcare Commission and the scores will feature as part of the star ratings.

Andrew Lansley: More talk from the Secretary of State, but no action. Perhaps he would like to admit that the reason is that last year the hospital cleanliness scores suggested that no hospital in the whole national health service had an unacceptable level of cleanliness. That did not accord at all with patient experience and illustrated the fact that the system is discredited, as the Healthcare Commission subsequently found.
	Let me try the Secretary of State with another one. Last December, the chief medical officer said that there should be a rapid review process to consider new products and processes, 50 of which have been presented to the Department. A meeting took place on 24 August. On 11 August, the Minister in the other place said that reports on just six would be published by mid-October, but that has not happened—why not?

John Reid: Since the hon. Gentleman said at the time that we were not independent when assessing hospital cleanliness and suggested today that the reports are discredited—I do not accept that, but it is his view— I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that we have asked the independent Healthcare Commission to estimate cleanliness in hospitals. It seems that if we do it, it is wrong, and if we ask an independent body to do it, it is wrong. That is a sign of bias rather than objectivity on the hon. Gentleman's part; he is so much better when he puts party politics aside.
	On his other question, let me say in my normal balanced fashion that I would have liked the study of these materials and treatments against MRSA to have started more quickly than it did. He is right about that. The organisation has met only once and is meeting again this month. The list of six that it has considered is scheduled to be published, and that will happen very soon. It is running a couple of weeks late, but I hope that it will not be much more than that.

Andrew Lansley: I am afraid that, as we have demonstrated many times in this House, the Government's response is one of a lack of urgency and delay. The data from the patient environment action teams are not being published. When we asked why not, we were told that it was because they were awaiting ministerial approval. That has nothing to do with the independence of the Healthcare Commission.
	Let me return to the point at which the Secretary of State started—that we need more data. More than four years ago, the National Audit Office said that the mandatory scheme should be extended to include all parts of the voluntary surveillance scheme that predated it and should be done on the basis of clinical specialty; but Ministers said no. Where is the National Audit Office's recommended national infection control manual, on which the Department started work in 2001? Even the matron's charter, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), said that people would be able to refer to a model cleaning contract, yet that does not exist. Why are the Government all talk and no action? Why cannot people see the action that needs to be taken to deliver cleaner hospitals and a safe environment for patients?

John Reid: Over the past few years the Government have been acting to deal with some of the very issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. He says that we are not putting out data. In fact, in July we issued data on bloodstream MRSA infections. I have to say, again in a balanced spirit, that an objective observer would recognise that during the 20 years in which they were in power the previous Government refused to publish any data. We are the first Government to have mandatory surveillance, the first Government to collect and publish the data, and the first Government to ensure that hospitals are judged on their cleanliness.
	Earlier, we discussed the potential contributory causes of MRSA. On old hospitals, we have the biggest building programme in history. On lack of staff, we have brought in 100,000 more doctors and nurses. On the immunity of the bug, within a month we are bringing the best international minds to this country to tackle the problem. We are putting nurses back in charge. We have just issued the matron's charter, and the chief nursing officer is taking this over. On cleanliness, above all, I am the Secretary of State who said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can make an appeal to the Front Benches. It is now quarter to the hour, and we are still on Question 1. I need sharper answers and sharper questions. Perhaps Paul Burstow can help us.

Paul Burstow: Thank you for that instruction, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State says that this Government are the first to do anything about MRSA. Surely that does not absolve them, however, if they are not doing enough to tackle the problem and there is still more to do. I certainly want to take him up on his offer of a meeting to discuss that issue. In July, he published a report promising cleaner, safer hospitals and action to deal with that. I have asked questions about that report, because it came just two days before a very critical report by the National Audit Office about the Government's performance in relation to hospital infections. The answer that the Minister gave me was that the report was a hastily cobbled together report on work in progress and contained nothing about new policies. Is that the case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could provide a sharp reply. At this rate, we shall only get four questions into the hour.

John Reid: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes; the answer to the last part is no. The answer to the middle part is that I look forward to seeing him at the meeting.

Hospitals (Wakefield)

Bill O'Brien: When he last met the chairman of the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust to discuss new hospital provision in the Wakefield, Pontefract and Dewsbury area; and if he will make a statement.

Melanie Johnson: The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) met the chairman of Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and local MPs in July to discuss a number of issues, including the hospital development plan. Those discussions have continued since then.

Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept, however, that we have particular problems with the new development, especially at the Pontefract general infirmary—the PGI? In a local press statement on 12 August, the chairman promised that there would be a review of the proposed bed reductions at Pontefract, because he was concerned about that. On 3 September, at a meeting of the health and social partnership, a promise of 100 beds at the PGI was made, but it was withdrawn in October. Patients who have received major surgery at the PGI are now being told that they might have to go to Dewsbury to complete their treatment, which would be a great imposition on their families, who might have to catch three or four buses to get there. Will my hon. Friend take an interest in the points that I have raised, and investigate them so that a more friendly service can be provided?

Melanie Johnson: Of course I take an interest in the points that my hon. Friend has raised. As he is well aware, there is a need to get the trust back on track in regard to its financial deficit, and work is going on to achieve that. We are committed to finding a sustainable solution that will give affordable and appropriate health care to the local community, and of course I shall be interested to listen to any further points that my hon. Friend would like to make on this issue.

Jon Trickett: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that Dorset is just a bit too far away from Dewsbury.

Patient Choice

Hugh Bayley: What steps he is taking to give NHS patients more choice about which (a) doctor and (b) hospital treats them.

John Reid: We are committed to giving patients greater choice within the national health service. We are already offering a choice of hospital to patients facing long waits for surgery, and we are extending choice to patients in regard to how they access treatment, advice and care within primary care, all of which is free at the point of need.

Hugh Bayley: I am glad to hear what the Secretary of State says about primary care, because 80 per cent. of doctor/patient consultations in the NHS involve general practitioners rather than hospital doctors. Does he accept, however, that not all GPs are the same? They have different specialist interests and training, and they perform to different qualities of care. Meaningful choice for patients depends on the patient having reliable information about the clinical practice and quality of care of individual doctors. What steps are the Government taking to provide better information to patients about primary care, so that they can have real power and a real choice about which doctor treats them?

John Reid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: if we are to give more power, information and choice to patients, we cannot restrict that to the secondary sector. Of course, we are now getting greater capacity in primary care: some 4,200 more doctors than previously; more specialisms, with some 1,300 doctors now specialising; new walk-in centres, which do not require an appointment; new commuter centres placed conveniently next to where people travel; and new roles for nurses, nurse practitioners, specialists and consultants. All of that opens up capacity, and therefore choice, in primary care.

Peter Lilley: Does the Secretary of State recall that one of the first acts of the incoming Labour Government was to abolish the last vestiges of the right to choose which NHS hospital one wanted to go to, which had existed since 1948? Does he now propose to rescind the regulation introduced in 1999, which stopped the funding of a person's choice to go to a hospital other than the one chosen for them by the bureaucracy? Does he recognise that the current talk about choice is a welcome whiff of a U-turn on his part, but unless the Government are prepared to allow genuine choice, rather than a limited choice among hospitals selected by the bureaucracy, there will be no real choice and no return to the choice that was endemic in the health service when it was set up?

John Reid: There is no legislative bar to extending choice, and as from next December, patients will be able to choose from a range of five shortlisted by the primary care trust. Increasingly, as we put in capacity, that will be extended so that by 2008, as the right hon. Gentleman said, any patient in England will be able to choose from any hospital in England, whether in the independent, charitable or NHS sectors, provided that it meets NHS standards and prices. I merely make one point: that can be achieved only because of our investment in capacity. It is a cruel deceit to promise people that capacity will be taken out of the NHS and that a greater degree of choice will still be given. We have heard for centuries that we are all free to dine at the Ritz, and only the lack of money prevents us from doing it. It is the same in the NHS—his party taking money out of the NHS will reduce choice, not extend it.

Jim Sheridan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if people are to have real choice in terms of which hospital they attend, accessibility must be a major factor in the criteria? Does he also agree that if people cannot afford to travel to hospitals, or there is no public transport infrastructure, they cannot have that choice?

John Reid: Yes on both counts, which is why we provide both capacity and travel facilities. The truth is that most people want easy and quick access to quality services as locally as possible. But the fact is that after 60 years, that is not available to everyone, so we must extend it so that people can go where they choose. I merely say one thing: we do not extend choice by saying that it will be available only to those who can pay half of the cost of their operation. The charges for operations that the Conservative party would introduce represent the cruellest deceit ever perpetrated on people in this country, especially the old and most vulnerable.

Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that patient choice would be enhanced if patients held their own records? Patient-held records would remove the need for complicated IT systems, because the doctors whom the patient had chosen would always have access to the information that they needed about that patient.

John Reid: In theory, that sounds like an advance from the current position, in which big files often get lost. Were we all asked to keep such big files, I suspect that the same thing might happen. Now that this country is at the forefront of information technology, surely the answer is to reduce such large files to a format that can be transferred easily between providers, so that when a patient decides to go to that hospital rather than this hospital, or that doctor rather than this doctor, there are no excuses and no physical bars to that transfer. Information technology will therefore become a source of information, power and choice to patients in a modern national health service.

NHS Dentistry

Parmjit Dhanda: If he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dental services for (a) children and (b) older people.

Rosie Winterton: Approximately 6.5 million children and 2.9 million adults aged over 65 are registered with NHS dentists. We will improve on those figures by making an additional investment of £368 million in NHS dentistry, and by recruiting an extra 1,000 dentists over the next year.

Parmjit Dhanda: I thank my hon. Friend, and invite her to visit Gloucester and see why we need some of that generally much-needed investment. Does she know about my constituent Terri Selby and her daughter Eleanor? My constituent was recently told that for her daughter to be given NHS dental treatment at a local practice, she herself would have to sign up to become a private patient there. Will my hon. Friend take measures to ensure that such blackmailing of people to join the private sector is prevented in my constituency and, indeed, in constituencies throughout the land?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is unacceptable behaviour. When such offers are made, there is rarely anything in writing. Moreover, some dentists are telling patients that they must pay a registration fee of about £40 before being taken on by the NHS. That too is unacceptable. Dentists are independent contractors and have the right to refuse to accept NHS patients if they wish, but we will discuss with the General Dental Council whether further action can be taken, in particular by means of the section 60 order that we are presenting to the House.
	My hon. Friend's area is one of those receiving special support from the Department. I should be delighted to go there to see how matters are progressing.

Marion Roe: Given the recent announcement of an increase in the number of places at dental schools, is the Minister confident that there are enough academic dentists both to train students and to engage in research?

Rosie Winterton: I have had discussions with the chairs of dental schools about how we can handle the academic side. I am very confident that our announcement of 170 extra training places, backed up by £20 million of extra investment, sends a clear message about our commitment to NHS dentistry and to training more dentists. I am also confident that it will play a big part in attracting academics to training and teaching.

Jim Dobbin: I thank my hon. Friend for her recent visit to the Langley dental practice in my constituency, where Mr. Tariq Drabu provides 100 per cent. NHS dentistry for young and old. She will have noted the close working relationship between Heywood and Middleton primary care trust and the practice.
	Mr. Drabu conducts outreach surgical sessions at the local clinic, with the support of local staff. Would my hon. Friend consider encouraging other dentists to emulate that model? It might return dentists from the private sector to the NHS.

Rosie Winterton: Visiting the Langley clinic and meeting local dentists was a very encouraging experience. I know that my hon. Friend's PCT has received about £83,000 in extra support this year, and is using it to give some 5,000 more patients access to NHS dentistry.
	I agree with what my hon. Friend says about that practice. It is increasing the number of patients who register, while also ensuring that dentists go into the community to reach those who do not want to register—for there will always be such people. Outreach services are important. The PCT's way of dealing with some local access difficulties is certainly impressive, and should be passed on to those in other areas.

Andrew Murrison: What success has the Minister had in recruiting dentists from European Union accession states, and how many dentists have been recruited internally as a result of her Department's £100,000 advertising campaign?

Rosie Winterton: The first 30 Polish dentists will arrive in January 2005. Recruits have already come from Spain, and have been allocated to specific areas. Following discussions with the GDC, everyone from outside the EU who was on the waiting list to take the international qualifying examination to start work as dentists will have been offered a place before the end of the year.
	In terms of responses to the recruitment campaign, I do not have the figures on me. I think that, about a month ago, there were about 180 responses to the initial campaign and they were being followed through at individual PCT level. It is a start, but we have a long way to go. I certainly would not deny that but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also moving towards local commissioning—more than 2,500 dentists have already moved to that—with additional capacity being provided too. As we have said, we will recruit 1,000 extra dentists by October 2005, which will go a long way towards solving many of the problems that we inherited from the previous Administration.

Anne Picking: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to find some mechanism that places an obligation on dentists to provide NHS dentistry? After all, it is the NHS that trains those people and supports them through their training. It is time that they gave something back. We need to introduce a quota system to do that.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right. People feel strongly that, when training is provided out of the public purse, there should be a commitment to the NHS. As I am sure she is aware, there are difficulties in doing that because dentists are independent contractors and there are issues around restraint of trade, but we have tried to look at other ways, for example, golden handshakes, to organise commitment to the NHS. As we move towards local commissioning, there is the ability within the new contracts to specify longer time limits for dentists who work for the NHS to remain within it.

Tariff-based Trust Funding

Steve Webb: What assessment he has made of the effects of his proposals for tariff-based funding of NHS trusts on the financial position of (a) the North Bristol NHS Trust and (b) the South Gloucestershire primary care trust.

John Hutton: NHS trust income will move to tariff-based funding by 2008–09. Financial modelling on the impact for NHS providers will be completed by December. For primary care trusts, the introduction of payment by results will be cost neutral.

Steve Webb: I am not sure that that response told me anything. North Bristol NHS Trust has run up cumulative deficits in excess of £40 million in the past few years and is now undergoing financial recovery, which involves some difficult decisions about current services. The movement to tariff-based funding will affect a relatively high-cost trust particularly badly coming on top of financial recovery. I am aware that the Minister plans to phase in the move to tariff-based funding but will he pay particular attention to trusts that are in financial recovery, lest he wreck the very financial recovery that they are trying to achieve?

John Hutton: Yes, we will certainly do that.

Health Check-ups

Simon Hughes: What plans he has to provide the opportunity for a regular NHS health check-up for NHS patients in England.

Melanie Johnson: NHS patients already have the right to request a health check-up from their general practitioner if they have not been seen by their GP in the previous three years. People aged 75 or more can request a check-up if they have not been seen by their GP in the previous year.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for that reply. While I share the Secretary of State's view that the last thing we want is a nanny state, will the Minister tell us how her proposals will ensure that the people who are most vulnerable and least likely to go to see a doctor are encouraged to have the check-up? What is the difference between the policies this month and the ones that were announced by the Prime Minister in July 2000?

Melanie Johnson: We accept that people want more support to improve their health and we are looking at a range of ways to do that, which will be announced in the White Paper. My hon. Friends have also made some announcements in relation to health checks for people with mental health and learning disability.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if a regular health check is good enough for Members of Parliament, it should be good enough for every citizen in the United Kingdom, and that this is the biggest single change that could bring about the transition from a national sickness service to a national health service? What more can the Government do to encourage GPs to take such screening seriously?

Melanie Johnson: We have just undertaken the biggest ever consultation on prevention and public health and there will be a White Paper coming out before the end of the year. I am sure that that will address the point that my hon. Friend has made. In addition, the contract itself already incentivises quality checks, and GPs are already operating within that new framework.

David Tredinnick: Does the Minister not think that these health checks should look carefully at the likelihood of allergies developing, given that some 250,000 children in this country suffer from them? A Health Committee report was highly critical of the Government's ability to deal with allergies. What is she going to do about this issue?

Melanie Johnson: The chief medical officer and the Secretary of State will look at the Health Committee's report very carefully over the next few weeks, and we will publish a detailed response as soon as possible.

David Kidney: With advice, we can all do more to look after our own health through a healthy diet and regular exercise. When will the new White Paper on healthy living be published?

Melanie Johnson: Before the end of the year.

Chiropody

Jacqui Lait: What measures he is taking to improve access to chiropody services.

Stephen Ladyman: An increasing number of chiropodists are working in the NHS and entering training. Since 1999, the number of qualified chiropodists and podiatrists employed in the NHS has increased by 13 per cent., and the number of students has increased by 33 per cent.

Jacqui Lait: The Minister's robust defence of NHS chiropody provision is interesting, but if what he says is so, why are so many people being forced to leave the NHS and to go private for chiropody?

Stephen Ladyman: People are not being forced to leave. Many primary care trusts are choosing to focus specialist podiatrist services on those in greatest need, while organising other methods of access to services such as nail cutting. That is the change that is taking place, and it is a perfectly rational one.

Andrew Miller: I accept my hon. Friend's point that the change is a rational one, but does he agree that somebody who is suffering pain as a result of such a condition should not be excluded from NHS treatment?

Stephen Ladyman: Yes.

John Baron: Despite what the Minister says, the latest Government figures clearly show that the number of patients receiving chiropody care in the NHS has fallen significantly in recent years, and that many hundreds of thousands of mostly elderly patients are being denied any form of NHS foot care altogether. The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists has confirmed that many patients are simply being bumped off waiting lists. I put it to the Minister that there is a lottery in chiropody care, as a result of which many elderly patients are needlessly suffering. Will he now stop blaming the PCTs, which have to juggle a number of Government targets and priorities—chiropody is not one of them—stop ignoring the situation, and do something to put it right?

Stephen Ladyman: It sounds to me like the hon. Gentleman is asking for a target. The figures that we collect cannot be used in any way, shape or form to draw the conclusions that he draws, which are a complete distortion of, and misuse of, those figures. What the statistics do show is that the level of access to chiropody services is stable and has been for many years.

NHS Dentistry

George Mudie: If he will make a statement on the numbers of NHS dentists.

Rosie Winterton: More than 19,300 dentists currently work in general dental services and personal dental services, but not all have a full-time commitment to the NHS. That is why we are increasing that figure by 1,000 whole-time equivalent dentists by next October, and increasing the number of dentists in training by 25 per cent.

George Mudie: I thank the Minister for that reply. Faced with the latest withdrawal from the NHS of a large dental practice in my constituency, I have been saddened by the PCT's slowness in assuring patients that replacement NHS facilities will be provided, and its slowness in telling them that they should not sign expensive private dental treatment contracts. Will the Minister join me in reassuring my constituents in that regard, and in helping to persuade the PCT to act a little quicker and more positively in dealing with their genuine concerns?

Rosie Winterton: I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. Sometimes a PCT's ability to communicate with patients can depend on the amount of notice given by the dentist, and dentists do not always stick to giving the amount of notice that should be given. I am sorry that the practice has decided to leave the NHS, particularly when we are putting significant new investment into the service. I also understand, however, that the PCT has made arrangements for other dentists across the east Leeds area to take on additional patients. All the patients deregistered by that practice will be able to find a new dentist. I accept my hon. Friend's point about ensuring that PCTs move quickly in such circumstances.

Richard Taylor: Despite the Minister's assurances about numbers, the availability of NHS dentistry to our constituents does seem to be declining. Has that been mirrored by a decrease in spending on NHS dentistry?

Rosie Winterton: One of the difficulties that arose in the past when NHS dentists moved away from the service was that the money reverted from local to national level. In changing how the contract operates, we are now trying to ensure that, if a dentist leaves the NHS, the amount of money that he would have been paid remains at local level. That will stabilise the situation. On top of that, we have also announced an extra 20 per cent. of growth money—something like £368 million—that will go into NHS dentistry from October next year. Putting in those very necessary extra resources will bring about a vast improvement in the position.

Andy Burnham: May I tell the Minister about the shock that hundreds of patients in Leigh felt when, without warning, they received a letter from their dental practice announcing that it was opting out of the NHS and that patients would have to pay £15 a month? As she knows, my constituency, like hers, is not an area where most people are readily able to afford such fees. I would make two suggestions. We could have more salaried dentists, making it easier to control their work load, or we could have much more widespread water fluoridation and put all these dentists out of business.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the first point. When we move towards local commissioning, we are able to increase the number of salaried dentists because local PCTs will be able to make a judgment about what is most appropriate for their area. On the second point, I know that my hon. Friend feels passionately about fluoridation. He is right that, where water fluoridation is introduced, we expect the number of children with no dental decay to increase by about 15 per cent. within five to 10 years. As he knows, strategic health authorities are now looking into the wishes of local populations and we shall be setting out regulations soon. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to play an active part in promoting water fluoridation in his constituency.

James Gray: Dentists covering the area of Box and Colerne in my constituency have recently joined a long string of dentists who have completely withdrawn from the NHS. That means that there is simply no NHS dentistry available at all in large parts of my constituency. Does the Minister remember that on 28 September 1999 the Prime Minister promised at the Labour party conference that an NHS dentist would be available for all who wanted one within two years—in other words, by 2001? Will the Minister now update us on when the whole population of Great Britain will have access to an NHS dentist?

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have set up some 47 dental access centres, increased the availability of one-off and emergency treatments for patients, and provided the option to ring NHS Direct, so people can access a dentist. However, the situation is unsatisfactory, as I would be the first to accept. That is precisely why we are taking the measures that we are at the moment. SDA estimates mean that approximately 700,000 extra places will be found by using short-term access money. We estimate that the overall figure is about 2 million, but as we move to local commissioning, we are confident that it can be achieved.

Joan Walley: May I tell my hon. Friend that Stoke-on-Trent has been identified as an area where more NHS dentists are urgently needed? There is now a proposal for an outreach teaching centre in Stoke-on-Trent under the auspices of the Birmingham dental school. Will she take account of the urgent need to establish such a training centre for new dentists in the town as soon as possible?

Rosie Winterton: Outreach centres are certainly an issue we have been looking at. A lot of evidence suggests that dentists tend to cluster around dental schools, so in considering training it is important to look at how we can put people into different areas. I have had some discussions about that with the chairs of the dental schools, and proposals will be put forward. A working group has been set up between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to look at some of the issues, and I shall make further announcements shortly.

Delayed Discharges

Annette Brooke: What assessment he has made of progress in reducing delayed discharges from hospital.

John Reid: The report "Better Health in Old Age", published today by Professor Ian Philp, highlights the progress already made on delayed discharge, which has fallen from 6,419 adults delayed in acute hospital beds in December 2001 to 2,619 in June 2004. That is a fall of almost 60 per cent. in less than two years, which has released capacity of 1 million bed days a year. That is equivalent to building eight district general hospitals.

Annette Brooke: The Commission for Social Care Inspection has found that pressure to free up beds is forcing staff to transfer people into nursing homes when a home care package might be preferred. Is the Secretary of State content that the needs and wishes of vulnerable older patients are fully taken into account when targets are pursued? Should we consider whether the target or the needs and wishes of the people should take precedence?

John Reid: I beg to differ with the hon. Lady: the report found no such thing. It contrasted bad practice with good practice, and we want all local authorities and everyone involved to follow the good practice that it highlighted.

Jim Cousins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts. In the city of Newcastle, the problem of bed blocking has largely been resolved over a period of 12 months.
	That said, at a meeting in about four hours' time, the new Liberal administration in Newcastle will declare the position of director of social services redundant. That gives me some concern about whether our developments and progress will be maintained. Will my right hon. Friend keep a close eye on that?

John Reid: I am surprised and disappointed to hear that. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we have made fantastic progress on delayed discharges and have put in very high real-terms increases for social care funding. The national delayed discharge grant of £100 million has assisted with that. I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that there is still a statutory obligation that means that someone will have to be appointed to be in charge of adult social services.

Martin Smyth: While I congratulate the Minister on the decline in the number of those requiring to be discharged from hospital, what total and what percentage of those discharges are now being dealt with by intermediate carers?

John Reid: There has indeed been a very welcome increase in intermediate care, and I hope that that will continue. I do not have the exact figures, but we have put great effort into making sure that the transition from hospital to home in the community is one that has been facilitated by resources and capacity. If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact figures.

Bill Olner: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the improving figures on people being held in hospital instead of going home or to other places. It is the case, though, particularly around this time of year, that a lot of elderly people suffer accidents, and there are other winter problems. What capital or other resources are being put into local hospitals so that they are better able to provide for the elderly at this time?

John Reid: My hon. Friend is right to say that we are putting tremendous effort into making sure that hospitals are prepared for the winter. Although we have coped extremely well over the past three winters—some of the terrible sights that we previously saw did not appear, which is to the credit of NHS staff—we should never take that for granted. One bad viral infection or the spread of something like a variant of flu can always make things very difficult, which is why I am glad that, despite the problems with Chiron, we are now on stream with flu vaccines so that anyone who wants one should certainly be sure to get one.
	Other very simple things could be done, such as our efforts to protect old people from falls. Some 400,000 old people a year seriously damage themselves through falls. We have a simple programme, laughed at by some aesthetes, called the sloppy slipper programme. Those 400,000 often injure themselves because of faulty footwear, which can be simply remedied, with a great deal of relief for everyone. There are also intermediary care facilities in which 330,000 people, many of them old folk, are assisted between hospital and home.

Royal United Hospital, Bath

David Heath: If he will make a statement on the financial situation of the Royal United hospital, Bath.

John Hutton: The trust is working with the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority to achieve a recurrent balanced financial position. In order to assist in this process, the Department has deferred the repayment of deficits and provided significant and sustained direct financial support through the SHA in each of the past three years.

David Heath: Anyone who knows the RUH gives credit for the standard of surgical and medical nursing care there and pays tribute to the efforts of the management team, in combination with the Government, in putting things right. The fact remains, however, that patients at the RUH still pay a penalty for the management mistakes of years ago. In a context of increasing resources for the NHS, surely it makes sense for the RUH to start with a level playing field from which it can build, rather than a deficit from which that is more difficult.

John Hutton: I think we all agree in principle with the hon. Gentleman. The truth is, however, that the money has to come from somewhere. If he is going to wipe out a deficit, it has to be paid for by other parts of the NHS. To imagine that anything else is possible is the fantasy-land politics that large sections of the Opposition inhabit.

Health Trust Funding

Matthew Taylor: What account is taken of local wage rates in allocating funds to health trusts; and if he will make a statement.

John Hutton: NHS allocations policy has taken account of differences in local wage rates since 1976. The market forces factor, within the funding formula, addresses variations in costs in delivering care, such as higher recruitment and retention costs. The formula is reviewed by an independent body, the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. Decisions on the 2006 to 2008 allocations have still to be made.

Matthew Taylor: What the Minister does not say is that historically the impact of different wage rates in the private sector in the wider community have been mitigated both by a balancing factor, so that neither the highest nor the lowest is fully factored in, and by counting the poorest 46 of the 177 wage areas as one group, effectively raising the poorest areas—Cornwall has the lowest wages of any—up 46 places in the rankings. Why is the Minister determined to implement, through the tariffs, a system that will tie the amounts paid to local hospitals one to one to local wage rates, when national pay scales apply in the NHS, leaving the poorest areas to get the least NHS funding—with, I understand, no academic research to back that up? Will he at least place the detailed research to justify that in the House of Commons Library?

John Hutton: Ministers act on the advice of the independent experts who have historically provided that sort of information to us. We are trying to be fair to everyone across the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) recently discussed that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's impression that something is fundamentally flawed with the market forces factor and that it should not be taken into account. He might want to read paragraph 4.63 on page 25 of Liberal Democrat policy paper No. 68, which says:
	"Funding will be"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I instruct the Minister not to waste the time of the House.

Candy Atherton: There have been real improvements in Cornish health care in recent years, and I am grateful to the Government for that. However, there is concern in the county about the issue. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that the vital investment in Cornish health services will continue?

John Hutton: I am certainly prepared to have a serious discussion with my hon. Friend about that, but I can tell her that the Liberal Democrats have no answer to the problem.

Owen Paterson: In my constituency, there are two enterprising sets of GPs— in Ellesmere and in Oswestry—who want to take advantage of competitive local wage rates and expand the service and the number of people they employ, but they also depend on allocations of funds from central Government to the primary care trust. The Minister's colleague, an Under-Secretary of State for Health, wrote to me on 15 June saying that those allocations to PCTs would be made "in the autumn". Today is 2 November. When in NHS terms does autumn end and winter begin? When will we know about those figures?

John Hutton: We hope to make allocations to primary care trusts very soon, but we are waiting for figures from the Office for National Statistics on population growth. Given the representations that Ministers have received, it is important that we base the allocations on the most up-to-date information about population growth, because they are capitation payments. We hope to be able to do that in January.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for the £233 million increase in strategic health authority funding since 1997, which has allowed us to have nearly 2,000 extra nurses and about 84 general practitioners. On the market forces factor, I thank him for the discussions that he has held with me since I raised that matter in March. It is my understanding that there has been some progress over the summer and I hope that he will continue to discuss it with us, as he has just indicated. Does he agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is about the third supplementary question that the hon. Lady has asked. There should be only one supplementary question.

John Hutton: We shall certainly continue those discussions with both my hon. Friends. In fact, the NHS in the south-west peninsula has received additional funding of nearly £400 million and I doubt very much whether that would have come from any of the Opposition parties.

Mental Health

Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future provision of care for mentally ill mothers with babies in the north-west of England.

Stephen Ladyman: Mental health services throughout England are going through a radical programme of modernisation to improve access to effective treatment and care, reduce unfair variation and raise standards. National standards for mental health have been set through the mental health national service framework and the standard of care for mothers in the children's national service framework.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister give some indication of what assessment he has made of the effect on patients and their families of the proposed closure of the mother and baby unit in the mental health unit of Leighton hospital, which serves the Macclesfield constituency? With the closure of that facility, will he confirm what specialised provision there would be for mentally ill mothers with babies in Cheshire, Wirral, Merseyside, north Wales, Shropshire and the north Staffordshire area? That matter is very important to my constituents.

Stephen Ladyman: I am sure it is, but it is also very important that mothers with such problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency receive the right sort of care, and usually that is best provided at home. The decisions that have to be taken are local and my understanding is that the local trusts are increasing provision at home, which means that there has been decreasing demand for those beds, so trusts have to take a view as to how best to provide in-patient services. That is what they are doing and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to engage in that consultation.

General Practitioners (Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire)

Alistair Burt: What his estimate is of the number of general practitioners needed in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority over the next 20 years.

Stephen Ladyman: It is the responsibility of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority to analyse the local situation regarding GP numbers and vacancies and to develop plans to provide the best possible primary care services for its residents. That process began in April 2004. Currently, there are 957 GPs in the SHA area, an increase of 74 since 1997.

Alistair Burt: The Minister's brief may also tell him that an internal paper from the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority states that the number of vacant GP posts in the area, currently 72, is expected to rise to 139 within three years and to 233 by 2011, and that over the next three years the SHA needs to recruit and retain the equivalent of 332 full-time GPs. That is long before the completion of the 160,000 new houses anticipated for the area by 2031. Where will those GPs come from, and is not the pressure to build new houses in the area so great that it is stretching precious infrastructure—physical and human—just too far?

Stephen Ladyman: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read the report to which he referred a little further, he would have seen that there are detailed plans on where the GPs will come from. The plan was produced because the local primary care trust was doing its job and forward planning to ensure that it could meet the challenges in his constituency.

Barbara Follett: I know that my local primary care trust congratulates the Minister on his forward planning in this area. It is certainly aware of the need to provide extra GPs to meet the requirements of extra housing. However, it is worried about the effect that section two of the new GP contract—the provisions on payments for meeting quality targets—will have on its ability to fund GPs in the future. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend have another look at how the payments are funded?

Stephen Ladyman: The payments have been agreed and about 80 per cent. of GPs voted for the new contract. The financing of the specific provision in the contract is being fully resourced and an extra £1.8 billion is being provided from the centre to ensure that quality requirements can be met with the contract fully funded. The local primary care trust is predicting the challenges that it will face in the years ahead and ensuring that it can respond to them, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend accepts that such planning is being done appropriately.

Post Offices (Pensions and Benefits)

Robert Smith: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the procedures for collecting pensions and benefits from Post Offices.
	The Bill would provide for a simpler process for opening a Post Office card account, prohibit pressure from being put on those who opt for such an account to switch to using a high street bank and ensure that all applicants clearly understand that an exceptions service is available.
	These are times of great change not only in terms of the way in which our constituents receive their pensions and benefits, but for the Post Office, because the changes introduced by the Government have an impact on our post offices' economics and how they operate. Traditionally, our constituents have been able to use girobooks to collect their pensions and benefits from a post office, but the Government are withdrawing that system in favour of direct payment. The method of direct payment according to which people may go directly to a post office to access payments is the Post Office card account, which is a substitute for the girobook, but the Government are encouraging people to switch to using bank accounts, although they offer an exceptions service for those who cannot cope with either service.
	The Government are forcing the pace of change because, as we know, people had the option to use their bank accounts prior to the Government's encouragement of that method, but they chose not to exercise it. We should respect the way in which our constituents wish to receive their pensions and benefits. We should understand that they have their own ways of budgeting and running their lives instead of forcing the pace of change for ministerial convenience. It is important to legislate on the matter to allow choice given the many other ways in which we have tried to persuade the Government to see the error of their ways and understand our constituents' need for genuine choice, rather than forcing choice on them.
	There are consequences of a system that forces people to switch the way in which they handle their cash and finances from that with which they grew up. It is extremely dangerous for the Government to push people who are used to weekly budgeting with cash into using bank accounts against their wishes. Many people who currently collect cash from a post office have a bank account, but use it only for saving or to draw rainy-day amounts, rather than for day-to-day budgeting. If such people prematurely switch to receiving their pensions in their bank accounts, owing to the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions handles those people, and try to manage all their weekly budgeting through those accounts, they could get into any kind of muddle. That could lead to an overdraft, and they would thus be faced with letters from banks costing £20 or £30. A Post Office card account, however, cannot be overdrawn. It is a simple replacement for the girobook. People who use the account may still use their post offices and budget with cash.
	The changes to the system also have consequences for our post offices—both rural and urban. The Government have had to recognise the additional pressures on rural post offices as they lose their traditional business of handling girobooks and they have had to come up with a subsidy of £150 million a year. That will continue until 2008 as an attempt to protect the rural post office network.
	The Post Office has also had to undergo a major reorganisation of its urban branches. Only this week we have learned that Crown post offices are to face reorganisation. It is concerning to our constituents that the urban reinvention programme—the re-planning of the urban network of sub-post offices—went ahead without including the Crown reorganisation, as many will have assumed that, having lost their traditional urban post office, a Crown post office would provide the safety net.
	For many communities, the post office is the last vital link with public services. It is the last meeting point and the last shop in many a rural village. People collecting their pensions also give such shops business. Using the post office sustains any other economic enterprise in the branch. The Government have promised that people will be able to continue to use their post office to collect pensions and benefits, but that will be a hollow promise if the post office is no longer there to use. It is therefore extremely important that we maintain the economic viability of post offices.
	Primarily, my Bill aims to protect individuals. Following an inquiry last year by the Trade and Industry Committee into the way in which the Government handled the transition to direct payment, I am extremely worried about the way in which our constituents appear to be pressurised into switching to the use of bank accounts—the Government's preferred method—to receive their pensions or benefits. I seek to redress the balance.
	The danger of switching to a bank account is not only that people might become overdrawn but the fact that many bank accounts cannot be accessed at a post office. HSBC, Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland group still have not provided a link to their current accounts through the Post Office. Therefore, encouraging the use of bank accounts—especially those I have just mentioned—automatically means that people can no longer use their post office. The Bill sets out a procedure to enable a neutral choice to be made.
	The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has highlighted such a choice in its 2004–05 manifesto. Hon. Members will find the document extremely useful in understanding the needs of our sub-postmasters and how best we can take forward a viable post office network. My Bill addresses the key part in the document on access to pensions and benefits in which the federation requests that the system be simplified. Currently, there are about eight steps to opening a Post Office card account. On receipt of a letter from the Government asking whether one wants to switch from the girobook, one has only to fill in one's bank details in order to use a bank account, but eight hurdles must be crossed in order to open a Post Office card account.
	The claimant receives an invitation pack for direct payment from the Department for Work and Pensions. The claimant then has to phone the Department's euphemistically named customer conversion centre where, as many of our constituents will attest, they have to fight quite hard to insist on their right to a card account. The Department then sends the claimant a personal invitation document; the claimant takes the personal invitation document to the post office; the post office gives the claimant a card account application form; the claimant completes the application form and returns it to the sub-postmaster, who sends it to Post Office Ltd; Post Office Ltd then sends the claimant account details, a personal identification number and a pick-up notice for the claimant to pick up the card at the branch.
	The Government slightly improved the service over the summer. The claimant used to have to fill in the account details from the Department's direct payment invitation pack, but at least the Government have short-circuited that last stage, and details can now be sent directly to the sub-post office, where the form will have already been filled in.
	The federation suggests a far simpler system. When mailed at the end of the girobook system, the constituent is presented with a simple choice of whether to tick the box to say that they want to use an account at the post office, and to take the pre-completed form that has arrived at the same time to the local sub-post office to open an account. Alternatively, they can tick a box to indicate that they want to use a bank or building society account, in which case they may fill in a bank mandate. Thirdly and importantly, the federation suggests a third option of the exceptions service, under which someone may receive regular payments by girocheque through the post. It suggests that it should be made clear that if the constituent fails to respond, the latter option will automatically be enabled. Many constituents find the new system worrying and may well prefer to use the exceptions service.
	It is vital to have a simple process for the future, because conversion applies not only to current claimants; all new claimants will have to consider their options and it is essential that they are aware that they can still use the Post Office and open a card account. There will be a clear statement in the Bill on the procedures to be followed for a DWP customer to open a card account. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have concerns about the pressure that is being put on people to switch to bank accounts and the Bill will state clearly that no pressure should be put on people using the service to switch from a Post Office card account. The Post Office should be driven by customer choice, not departmental convenience.
	The House must exert its authority and insist that pensioners and those on benefits have a fair choice as to how they collect their cash in future. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Smith, Mr. Roger Berry, Malcolm Bruce, Richard Burden, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Nigel Evans, Kate Hoey, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Alan Reid, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Peter Viggers.

Post Offices (Pensions and Benefits)

Sir Robert Smith accordingly presented a Bill to amend the procedures for collecting pensions and benefits from Post Offices: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 170].

Children Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No.2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the programme order of 13th September 2004 in relation to the Children Bill [Lords] be amended as follows—
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2.   The Proceedings shown in the first column of the following table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Proceedings on New Clauses standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown and proceedings on New Clauses relating to Part 1. 2.30 p.m. on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are begun. 
			 Proceedings on remaining New Clauses, other than New Clauses relating to the reasonable punishment of children. 4.15 p.m. on that day. 
			 New Clauses relatinmg to the reasonable punishment of children and remaining proceedings on Consideration. 6.00 p.m. on that day. 
		
	
	3.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are begun.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Tim Loughton: The Opposition do not want to hold up the Chamber's work this afternoon because we have a lot of business to get on with, which is why we cannot agree to this programme motion. We are about to discuss no fewer than 43 amendments and 16 new clauses; to tackle the important subject of new clause 2, which was completely emasculated in Committee, new developments on fostering, which have appeared since Committee, and serious outstanding problems on databases in clause 12; and we want to give a proper airing to parental access, and the whole subject, which we were fortunate enough to avoid in Committee, of smacking. The time allocated, as we have suggested all along, is really not sufficient to tackle these substantial issues. For that reason we cannot accept the programme motion.

Annette Brooke: Liberal Democrats find the programme motion unacceptable because we have some important issues to consider and, unlike the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I do think that we need to discuss the issue of reasonable chastisement in great detail today. We would not seek to divide the House because we would prefer to spend the time on debate, but in the event of a Division we could not support the motion.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 148.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Children Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Sharing of information

'(1)   The Assembly and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service may provide any information to each other for the purposes of their respective functions under this Part and Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43).
	(2)   A Welsh family proceedings officer and an officer of the Service (within the meaning given by section 11(3) of that Act) may provide any information to each other for the purposes of any of their respective functions.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Don Touhig: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 5, in clause 25, page 19, line 39, at end insert—
	'(g)   Wales Joint Education Committee.'.
	Amendment No. 6, in page 19, line 39, at end insert—
	'(h)   the governor of a prison or secure training centre in Wales (or in the case of a contracted out prison or secure training centre, its director).'.
	Amendment No. 7, in clause 27, page 21, line 8, leave out from 'officer,' to ', for' in line 9.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'members,' to ', to' in line 12.
	Government amendment No. 40.
	Amendment No. 33, in clause 65, page 42, line 36, at end insert
	'but such an order must be made before the end of a period of nine months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed'.

Don Touhig: Given the way in which Bills are usually drafted and considered, it is unusual for a Minister who speaks about Welsh issues to be on his feet first on Report, particularly when some of the amendments are minor and technical. However, the Bill will benefit the children and young people of Wales, and I am delighted to open the debate.
	Before turning to the first technical Government amendment, however, I should like briefly to reflect on the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament. The Bill was introduced in the other place, where it was well received and described as a small Bill with a big heart. Although almost 600 amendments were tabled, many of them were probing amendments and the Bill's core remains unchanged. It is testament to the thinking behind the Bill's central provision—to establish a commissioner to help improve the lot of children—that it has attracted general support in this House.
	I pay tribute to the good work by members of Standing Committee B on the Bill. The debate was well informed and constructive, and the Government were able to respond positively on a number of areas— I am sure that the contributions to this afternoon's debate will be equally positive. A number of issues have followed the Bill through both Houses, and I have no doubt that they will be touched upon in the debate.
	I shall discuss Government new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 40 now and respond to amendments moved by hon. Members afterwards. New clause 11 provides for the effective sharing of information between the Assembly and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS. Following the transfer of CAFCASS in Wales to the Assembly under part 4 of the Bill, it will be important for both to have a facility that will allow them to share information relating to individual cases. For example, there are likely to be cases involving children of families living on either side of the border who have separate family proceedings officers, both of whose tasks would benefit from sharing information about the two cases.
	Similarly, a child made the subject of an order in Wales may at a later date move to England, so that if there are second proceedings in relation to that child, a different family proceedings officer will be appointed. Again, there will be considerable benefit from the Welsh family proceedings officer being able to share information about the first case with their counterpart in England. In addition, following the transfer, it will clearly be in the interests of both services for there to be ongoing liaison on good practice and management issues. Certainly, it would be desirable for CAFCASS and the Assembly to be able to share centrally held information concerned with organisational issues.
	Government amendment No. 40 simply corrects a drafting error. As the Bill stands, clause 27(2)(a) requires a local health board to appoint a lead officer for children and young people's services for the purposes of the board's functions under the co-operation arrangements in clause 25 and the planning requirements in clause 26. The reference to clause 26 is incorrect. Although, under clause 25, the local health board would be involved in the planning consultation for children's services, the duty to prepare and publish a plan under clause 26 rests with the children's services authority. The amendment therefore restores the duties of a local health board under clause 27 to those originally intended.
	I shall confine my remarks at this stage to the Government's proposals and respond appropriately when hon. Members have spoken to the other amendments.

Roger Williams: There is much in the Bill that Liberal Democrat Members can support, including the transfer of CAFCASS to Wales. However, the Minister will know that we have reservations about several issues, and we look to the Government to be more accommodating on those than they have been in the past.
	I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 5 to 8, which stand in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). Amendment No. 5 follows recommendations made in the Clywch inquiry into abuse in schools. In one case, a schoolteacher devised inappropriate drama activities as part of an examination curriculum whereby children were encouraged into activities that were, because of their sexual content, entirely inappropriate for their age and maturity. The examining board—the Welsh Joint Education Committee—provided examiners to go into the school to investigate the activities on its behalf and to evaluate them in terms of their dramatic merit in classifying pupils for exam results. Those examiners should have reported that something was going on in the school that was giving them great concern, but unfortunately they did not do so. As a result, some of the abuse and harm went on for much longer than was necessary.
	Amendment No. 8 would therefore require that the Welsh Joint Education Committee be one of the partners that co-operates with the children's departments of local education authorities to ensure the welfare of children. In a plenary session of the Welsh Assembly, Jane Davidson, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, said:
	"Jane Hutt and I have written to Charles Clarke proposing that examination boards be added to the list of bodies that the Bill requires to have regard for the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children."
	I hope that the Minister will take that on board. It is important that examination boards have a role to play, especially where practical activities are concerned.
	Amendment No. 6 would require that governors of prisons or secure training units in Wales—or directors of contracted-out prisons or secure training units—also become partners in promoting the welfare of children and young people.
	Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are minor amendments that would give discretion to local authorities in naming the lead member or lead officer responsible for the functions in the Bill.
	I should like the Minister to respond particularly to Amendment No. 5, which experience in Wales has led us to believe should be included in the Bill.

Martyn Jones: I rise in support of new clause 2, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and to which I am co-signatory, and amendment No. 34, which stands in my name. They are complementary. My amendment would remove the role of the children's commissioner for England from the Welsh equation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a little too early. I think that he is talking about the next group of amendments.

Martyn Jones: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is all right—we all make mistakes.

Don Touhig: I listened carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams)—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), although I am sure that he will return to those a bit later.
	Amendment No. 5, which stands in the names of the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and for Brecon and Radnorshire, proposes the inclusion of the Welsh Joint Education Committee—WJEC—in the list of partners in clause 25 who must co-operate with children's services authorities in Wales to improve the well-being of children in the area. The intention of clause 25 is that, taken with clause 26, it will provide a statutory basis for the work of the children and young people's framework partnerships in planning local services. It is difficult to see how the WJEC could be included with the clause 25 partners, because it is different in nature from the other bodies listed. It is a company limited by guarantee and owned jointly by the 22 local authorities in Wales. It has an office base in Cardiff but no regional or local presence in Wales, and it would be difficult to support its attendance at meetings of local partnerships. Its functions are highly specialised and narrow in comparison with the other bodies named as partners, which include the police, the probation service and health services. The National Council for Education and Training for Wales is included as a partner in recognition of the significant role that it plays as a local education and training provider.
	I am of course aware of the criticisms of the WJEC by the Children's Commissioner for Wales in the Clywch inquiry report that he published a little while ago. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his valuable work in carrying out that inquiry. I do not believe, however, that the amendment would adequately address his concerns. Apart from the inappropriateness of the WJEC being involved in 22 sets of local planning arrangements, many other awarding bodies operating within Wales would have to be brought into the equation. The vast majority are England and Wales awarding bodies, and the commissioner clearly had that wider field in mind when making his recommendation to my colleagues in the Assembly. He recommended that the Welsh Assembly, in partnership with the Department for Education and the Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwluwm ac Asesu Cymru—ACCAC—and the equivalent qualifications, curriculum and assessment authorities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England consider the role of examining bodies across the UK with regard to child protection arrangements. The Government and the Assembly are committed to working together with the regulatory authorities in England and Wales to produce a practical response to the commissioner's recommendations, and we have established a steering group to take that work forward. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will concede that his amendment is a bit premature, because it is important that we have this wider consultation.
	I have some difficulty with amendment No. 6 as well. The arrangements in clause 25 for promoting co-operation are focused mainly on children and young people who are permanently resident in the local authority area concerned. There would be little purpose in requiring a prison or secure training centre to take part in local arrangements with local agencies if few of the young people in its care were likely to come to their attention. However, clause 25(1)(c) places a duty on the children's services authorities to promote co-operation with
	"such persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate",
	which I hope will give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. If the authority considers it appropriate for a prison governor or a director of a secure training centre to be involved in the co-operation arrangements, the authority must seek that involvement. The outcome will be a matter for local arrangement, and will depend on local circumstances. It would be inappropriate, and perhaps disproportionate, for such governors and directors automatically to be required to become involved in local co-operation arrangements.
	In regard to amendments Nos. 7 and 8, there are a number of differences between the provisions for England and Wales in the Bill, which serve to build on the distinctive approach to developing services for children and young people that has been taken by my colleagues in the National Assembly. In Wales, no change is planned in the responsibility for service provision by requiring the appointment of a children's services director. There is no requirement for children's trusts. Instead, clause 27(1) requires each local authority to appoint a
	"lead director for children and young people's services"
	to co-ordinate and oversee co-operation arrangements to improve their well-being, and to designate a member for the same purpose. These lead directors and the lead members required to be designated will be responsible for taking forward arrangements for partnership planning to ensure that it acts as the strategic driver for action. I hope that, in the light of these assurances, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will feel able not to press their amendments to a vote.
	We are somewhat confused about the intention behind amendment No. 33, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and his hon. Friends. It might help if I explain the reason for the difference in commencement arrangements for clause 28 for the devolved and non-devolved bodies in Wales. The duty on agencies to ensure that their functions are discharged, having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, is placed on a range of agencies in Wales by clause 28, and in England by clause 11.

Tim Loughton: May I save the Minister some breath? This amendment would be more appropriately tabled in relation to the private fostering arrangements, but it has not been. On that basis, I was not proposing to move it, so I hope that I can save some of the Minister's time.

Don Touhig: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has saved us some time. I also hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will feel able not to press the Liberal Democrats' amendments to a vote, and I urge the House to accept the Government's new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 40.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17
	 — 
	Payments to foster parents

'(1)   The appropriate person may by order make provision as to the payments to be made—
	(a)   by a children's services authority in England or Wales or a person exercising functions on its behalf to a local authority foster parent with whom any child is placed by that authority or person under section 23(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41);
	(b)   by a voluntary organisation to any person with whom any child is placed by that organisation under section 59(1)(a) of that Act.
	(2)   In subsection (1)—
	"appropriate person" means—
	(a)   the Secretary of State, in relation to a children's services authority in England;
	(b)   the Assembly, in relation to a children's services authority in Wales;
	"local authority foster parent" and "voluntary organisation" have the same meanings as in the Children Act 1989 (c.41).
	(3)   In section 23(2)(a) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41), at the end insert "(subject to section [payments to foster parents] of the Children Act 2004)".
	(4)   In section 59(1)(a) of that Act, at the end insert "(subject to section [payments to foster parents] of the Children Act 2004)".'.—[Margaret Hodge.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 10—National fostering allowance—
	   'The Government shall by regulations establish a national minimum fostering allowance payable by all children's services authorities in England.'.
	Amendment No. 31, in clause 44, page 32, line 6, at end insert—
	'(aa)   the circumstances in which a person may be permitted to foster privately a child previously known to him without being registered;'.
	Amendment No. 32, in page 34, line 29, leave out clause 46.
	Government amendments Nos. 41 to 43.

Margaret Hodge: I know that Government new clause 17 and the consequential amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be welcomed by foster carers and by organisations such as the Fostering Network that promote foster care and work on behalf of foster carers. I intend to speak to the Government amendments and then respond to the amendments tabled by other hon. Members.
	During our discussions on the Bill, strong arguments were advanced by foster carers and their organisations. We have listened to those arguments and are now in a position to respond positively to them. All hon. Members recognise the importance of foster carers, particularly in providing stability and a loving home for the most vulnerable children in our community—those who are looked after by the state. If we are to meet our objective of ensuring greater stability for more looked- after children, it is key that we try to recruit and retain more foster carers in the foster care work force. To do that, we need to put in place a range of measures.
	We have already achieved a lot, but I recognise that there is more for us to do. For instance, we are supporting local authorities in recruiting local foster carers in their local communities and we have prepared a pack for local authorities to use for that purpose. The recruitment of foster carers is most sensibly carried out locally and the job for the Government is to support local authorities in that task. We are also supporting the training of foster carers in the local community. For foster carers to feel valued and to feel that they have an important role to play, it is important that they receive continuous professional development and training, to give them a feeling that theirs is a proper profession.
	We have also improved the tax and pensions position for foster carers, which has made a welcome change over the past few years. We are putting other measures in place, too. For example, we are developing a national telephone helpline for foster carers, and we hope to provide better support for foster carers who face allegations. We also want to celebrate excellence in foster carers through the introduction of a national award scheme.
	For all that, we have had strong representations about what is perceived to be the unfairness resulting from the variability in the allowances paid to foster carers across the country. Those allowances do vary. I have looked at the Fostering Network's figures and seen variations from £60 to £250 in the costs awarded to foster carers for looking after an eight-year-old child. There are even variations within regions, which is difficult to explain. For example, in the north-west region, the allowance paid for looking after an eight-year-old varies from £60 to more than £200 per week.
	The Government want to ensure that the allowances for foster carers fully meet the costs of caring for a looked-after child. We want to ensure greater transparency and consistency in the way in which local authorities calculate those allowances. That is why we are introducing the new clause and the amendments that go with it. Over the coming months, we will work closely with the local authorities and all the other stakeholders to come to a sensible view of how we should proceed on these issues.
	We must all recognise that there will be variations in the cost for caring for a looked-after child. There will be variations according to the child's age, for example, and regional variations reflecting differences in housing costs up and down the country. There will be legitimate differences in the costs involved in looking after a looked-after child, depending on the complexity of the issues facing a particular child. We need to address what precisely the allowances should cover and decide what should legitimately be included in an allowance and what is perhaps less fair. We also need better to understand the relationship between allowances and the payments that some authorities give to foster carers for looking after children.
	We want to examine other issues relating to payment over the coming months. For example, is there sufficient clarity in each local authority about entitlements? Do foster carers face difficulties when claiming one- off grants? Are there inefficiencies in various local authorities in regard to providing information or responding promptly to claims by foster carers?

Hilton Dawson: My right hon. Friend rightly differentiates the remuneration of foster parents and payment for skills. Does she propose to introduce some national scale on which foster parents could be paid for the skills that they bring to their work?

Margaret Hodge: That is one of the many issues on which we want to consult local authorities and other stakeholders, including those organisations that represent foster carers, to make sure that we have a scheme that is workable and fair, and that enables us to recruit and keep more foster carers looking after children.
	We already have resources available, about which some local authorities have expressed concern. For example, we have set aside £113 million over this spending review period under our "Choice Protects" programme, which puts a focus on fostering. If we consider the comprehensive spending review settlement, an extra £1 billion will be invested in children's services by the end of the period 2004–05 to 2007–08. We need to discuss local authorities' priorities with them.
	I hope that the new clause and amendments are generally welcomed by the House. I look forward to working through the issues with all stakeholders, so that we can create fairness and equity and thereby support all the efforts that we all feel are important to build a stronger foster care work force.

Tim Loughton: May I start uncharacteristically by congratulating the Minister and the Government on the new clause and corresponding amendments? We did not discuss foster carer payments in Committee. I have supported such payments, because we face a drastic problem. We spoke in Committee about foster carer registration schemes, which I shall deal with later in relation to our two amendments in this group.
	The situation is dire and has got worse over the past year or so. It is now estimated that there are about 10,000 foster carer vacancies at a time when demand is certainly not lessening. There is great confusion about the amounts paid by varying local authorities to foster carers and no real benchmark for assessing whether local authorities are really paying the full cost. Figures produced by the Fostering Network show the enormous disparities, region by region, in relation to the percentage of local authorities paying below the minimum allowance: in the east midlands, 100 per cent. were below the minimum allowance, whereas in London, the figure was as low as 19 per cent. There is enormous confusion and variation in how fostering is remunerated up and down the country, which is one of the problems associated with the current shortage of foster carers. Perhaps more worrying is the way that we lose foster carers: the cost of training a foster carer is calculated as £12,000, so it is a false economy not to do everything that we can to keep good-quality foster carers in place once we have them.
	I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have at last addressed this problem. There was a high-pressure campaign and many of us were e-mailed incessantly by foster carers all over the country calling for a new scheme for minimum allowances. Clearly, that work has paid off. But as the Minister said, much work still needs to be done to define how this scheme will operate in practice. I want to raise a few questions, most of which I am sure she will already be aware of. Perhaps she will give some initial responses as to the Government's current thinking, particularly in relation to how the scheme will be funded through local authorities.
	The Deputy Prime Minister agreed at a Central Local Partnership conference of councillors two weeks ago that the Government would not impose additional burdens on local authorities if they were unfunded. That was a clear commitment given to the Local Government Association and local councillors. We therefore hope that it will be clear to local authorities how the scheme will be funded over the longer term. What reserve powers will the Minister have to invoke to put the scheme in place? When is it likely to be introduced? We hope that it is not just a wish list for several years hence. The Minister mentioned that £113 million is already allocated to "Choice Protects", much of which is targeted at the training of foster carers, and providing information to foster carers, but not at allowances. It does not therefore tackle directly the problem of proper funding of the scheme.
	The Minister rightly referred to the problem of local authorities doing different things in different areas of the country. Certainly, variations for different costs of living up and down the country would be desirable. What discussions has she had with the LGA on putting that into effect? In a letter, the LGA stated:
	"It has the potential to cut across the ability of the local authority to develop different arrangements for paying allowances, expenses and other specific grants for costs such as holidays or school trips to foster carers. Taking account of local variables such as the age profile of looked after child population, or the regional variations in the cost of living are important in determining allowances locally."
	I hope that all those considerations will be taken on board when the scheme is finalised.
	The British Association for Adoption and Fostering has also raised questions, referring to
	"how the allowance will be calculated, the implementation date and whether a new ring-fenced grant will be made available to local authorities to ensure that this measure is funded."
	It has launched a campaign to ensure that.
	I welcome the Government amendments, but we want to see the beef, and we want to see it soon. We want to make sure that all those questions are being addressed, rather than have the Minister or her successor come back to the House in a few years' time still considering how the scheme will work.
	That is only half the deal—we had some time in Committee to address the other half, which is the whole subject of a registration scheme. Extraordinarily, the Minister set her mind completely against that, despite the fact, to remind her, that every report that the Government have commissioned over the past five years confirms that privately fostered children are very vulnerable, and that a registration system involving the approval of private foster carers would protect their interests better than the current situation in which private foster carers are required only to notify local authorities about arrangements. I tackled her in Committee about how many people have fallen foul of the law as it currently stands. She was unable to answer that, largely because the number is tiny. The system is not working at the moment, and still too many people—we do not know the extent of it, because it is unquantifiable—are entering into private arrangements, particularly with vulnerable girls from west Africa who, as we know all too well, come into the country, disappear into the system and are open to all kinds of abuse and neglect, ending up in the sex industry or effectively as domestic slaves.
	The Opposition still cannot understand why the Government have proved so inflexible on this issue. Their additions to the Bill do not address the problem—they are tokenism of the worst kind. Our amendments Nos. 31 and 32 therefore set down that the regulations must define
	"the circumstances in which a person may be permitted to foster privately a child previously known to him without being registered".
	In effect, we have attacked the problem from the other end, because the Minister was not responsive to setting up a registration scheme, with the question: when will private fostering be allowed, permissible and promoted by the Government if that arrangement is not registered? That is a different question to address the same problem, and I hope that the Government start to have the sort of conversion that they appear to have had on fostering allowances and become more open-minded on going the whole hog. I shall then be absolutely delighted to congratulate the Minister doubly, which is doubly unexpected from me.
	That would help to give much more protection to a host of children whose fostering arrangements are inadequate and ensure that legitimate fosterers are properly remunerated, incentivised and trained. They will then be able to take on much more of the work load that we need them to take on, especially with difficult children, so that such children can be given a second chance of a stable upbringing rather than being condemned to the outer reaches of the system—far-flung children's homes where they are not best looked after—or condemned to failure in the sphere of education or health.
	I congratulate the Minister on her new clause and amendments, but may I push her further? Now that she has opened the door, let us have all the beef and not just half of it.

Hilton Dawson: I wholeheartedly welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. It marks excellent progress for not just foster carers but the entire care system. If we are to have a really effective system, we must ensure that foster carers are properly valued. That involves recompensing them for all the costs of looking after children and rewarding them for their skills. Those skills vary, but some carers operate very professionally, providing tremendously good care for some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children. All foster carers are doing an invaluable job: they are key partners in the system.
	I am delighted that this good news has been welcomed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Having managed a family placement team during the last eight miserable years of Conservative government before 1997, I can tell him that the rates paid to foster carers then were an absolute disgrace, and carers prevailed on me regularly to do something about it.

Tim Loughton: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that those eight so-called miserable years were years in which there were rather more Labour councils than there are now, and that it was left to councils to pay the carers? It is entirely down to the hon. Gentleman's party that those years were so miserable.

Jonathan R Shaw: We were starved of resources.

Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend was in a similar position. We were indeed starved of resources. Let us get real: the problem has been around for probably 50 years, but it was certainly much worse under the Tory Government. It has taken this Government to provide real resources and show real determination.

Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman has a good deal of experience, but is there is not also a responsibility to ensure that local authorities have enough resources to support the foster carers whom we hope to recruit? Past failure has been due to a lack of resources at the centre to pay those taking on the task that the hon. Gentleman describes so eloquently.

Hilton Dawson: I agree. Thanks to "Choice Protects", at last some real investment—good money—is being spent on the training and ongoing support of foster carers, and we will see that that continues.
	I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is going to consult. There are difficult issues to be teased out. They vary in different parts of the country and in different parts of the care system. What I would insist on is the development of good practice. I hope that we will not end up with a basic service providing the bare minimum. What foster carers want, need and deserve is quality—quality support, quality training and quality remuneration. They do not want to have to undergo endless bureaucratic processes just to identify the odd bit of money that they have paid on a child's behalf.
	Looked-after children are the children of corporate parents, the local authorities. Those 60,000 looked-after children are our children. We owe it to them, via their foster carers, to treat them generously and give them all the life chances that every child should have the right to enjoy. That is our duty.
	I will not say much about private fostering today. I voted against the Government on that in Committee, I disagree with the line that they are taking and I hope that they will quickly realise that the present notification scheme is completely inadequate. A registration scheme would be effective, simple and in the interests of privately fostered children, their parents and the fosterers. Today, however, we should celebrate the progress that is being made, and look forward to consultation and the involvement of all parties in making the care system much better than it has been in the past.

Annette Brooke: I too congratulate the Government. I am glad that we have embarked on this stage in a spirit of celebration. We all recognise the vital role of carers in giving some of the most disadvantaged children the opportunity of a stable family life and, indeed, other opportunities. We should value the wonderful people who offer those services, and show that we value them.
	The Government's new clause and amendments make our new clause redundant. We are pleased about that, and pleased about the response to debate in the other place. I particularly appreciate the Minister's assurance that there will be more emphasis on training: I think that professionalisation is part of the valuing of the skills from which we are benefiting as a society and as corporate parent. What is clear is that we have failed looked-after children in many respects, and we can do much better.
	I am glad that there is to be consultation in an attempt to agree on the details. It will be a difficult process, but it is the only way to deal with vast discrepancies for which it is hard to find any explanation. While acknowledging the complexities and the hard work involved, I would find it helpful if the Minister gave us an idea of the time scale. People need to know whether we are talking about six, 12 or 18 months.
	I am afraid that local authorities in my part of the world pay less than the minimum, no doubt because of pressure on resources. We will need to be reassured that there will be new resources to cover this new measure. I do not think that referring to pots of money that are already accounted for is sufficient.
	I, too, lament the fact that we did not manage to persuade the Government that private foster parents should be registered now rather than at some indefinite time in the future. I hope that we shall be able to return to that, although I accept that we debated it at length in Committee.

Hywel Williams: I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members who may be looking for some dissent here but I too welcome the words of the Minister. I have long been in favour of establishing minimum fostering allowances. As a very young social worker in the mid-1970s, I found it extremely difficult to recruit foster parents, one of the reasons being that the rates were so insufficient. Only last year, I met with the fostering network in my constituency in Caernarfon, Gwynedd, and found the same concerns surfacing yet again, some 28 years later.
	Foster parents are in short supply. Often they are out of pocket, and willingly so because they are committed to the work that they do. They play an invaluable role on behalf of us all. That should be recognised properly. The state should not be, by default, taking advantage of those people's commitment to their calling, and I am glad that the Minister will remedy that.
	There is something of a postcode lottery in Wales, as the rates vary in the 22 local authorities. I will be glad to see the establishment of minimum rates, so that the rates paid do not depend on the local authority's ability to pay. I and the hon. Members who have contributed so far may have been reading the same brief. I think that the questions that have been raised already are important: how will the rates be calculated—I say "rates" because I assume that there will be a number—when will they be implemented and will local authorities be certain that a ring-fenced grant is available to ensure that the measure is properly funded?

Mike Hancock: Like other hon. Members, I am delighted that we have this measure. It would be foolish of anyone here to doubt its necessity, or the pleasure that the whole House must have in seeing the new clause and indeed the Bill come into force. However, there are real issues.
	I had 35 years' experience in local government of trying to recruit and encourage people to foster. It was not just the initial rate for the job that was a problem, but the failure of local authorities to support foster parents once in a position to take care of children. They always had to fight for the foster child's right to have the money to go on a school trip or to have the school uniform provided. Local authorities always saw foster care and fosterers as at the bottom end of social services' responsibilities. There was never great enthusiasm, mainly because too many social services directors thought that they knew best and held children's homes as a solution to the problem. It has taken a generation to change that.
	I am delighted that the director of social services for Portsmouth city council, Mr. Rob Hutchinson, has been actively involved in much of the work that we are discussing. It is to his credit that he brings his reputation and the experience that he has gained both in Portsmouth and in Hampshire to bear on this matter, but the issues do not end there. Hon. Members are right to raise some doubts: the length of time it will take clearly to establish a minimum rate that will be universally acceptable and the need for flexibility on top of that, because it will still be difficult to recruit. In London, it will for ever be difficult to recruit foster parents. In some regions of the south-east, because of the economic climate, it will be difficult because it will be better for a family who need the resources to go elsewhere. Therefore, we must ensure that the judgment made on the minimum rate is right, and that local authorities have flexibility to allow extra payments to be made to take care of local needs. That must be a requirement.
	On the point about local authorities ring-fencing not only the fostering element but their responsibilities towards fosterers, one cannot increase the number of fosterers if one does not increase the amount available to local authorities to manage, recruit, train and supervise what is happening properly. Too many local authorities will recruit as many fosterers as they can to take care of these vulnerable children in what they consider now to be the best way, yet not resource their central advisers to fosterers properly.
	Sadly, private fostering has often come to the fore in my area. Local authorities face dilemmas in trying to deal with that, as do any of the authorities, such as the police, that may want to get involved but find it difficult to do so. I am at a loss to understand why the idea of a compulsory legally enforceable register for private fostering is not at the forefront of the Bill, because the real dangers are to those children.
	Most children in local authority care will stand a reasonable chance of having their progress properly monitored and their futures clearly marked out for them but, in lots of instances, private fostering relationships are recipes for personal tragedies for the children. For that not to be recognised is a failure. Some way of having proper control over those arrangements and over the monitoring of those children is essential if we are to give them a fair chance in life. It is simply not good enough to suggest that what we have at the moment is satisfactory, because it manifestly is not.
	That said, I welcome what has been said. I hope that the consultation is speedy, but I do not want it to neglect some of the real issues that need to be dealt with. Some of them may have to be dealt with by future legislation because I do not think that they can be remedied as easily as some of us may want.

Margaret Hodge: It is a delight to see such consensus not just across the Chamber, but on the Government Benches. I welcome that enormously. Perhaps we should stop our business now.
	Hon. Members have raised perfectly legitimate issues and demonstrated some of the complexity of the detail that we need to deal with as we take forward our intent to set a national foster care allowances system in process. The letter that was sent by the Association of Directors of Social Services said:
	"The devil is very much likely to be in the detail. The ADSS would expect that should the Bill be so amended"
	as we are doing today
	"there would be detailed discussions about a staged implementation between the Government and local government."
	It is because of the complexity of the issues and because we want to take our partners with us—the people on the front line who will have to implement the national scheme—that we are looking at a staged implementation. To help hon. Members, I will tell them what our thinking is, although it is early days.
	We want to spend the early part of 2005 in extensive consultation with all interested partners. We hope at the end of that process to be able to set the rates and to publicise them. We hope that that in itself will move things forward and that a number of authorities will improve their rates after we have taken them through the discussion on what is a fair rate for looking after a child. During 2006, we hope to work with local authorities in implementing the rates, as set in 2005. We will then, probably at the beginning of 2007, invoke the power, should that be necessary, if local authorities are not complying with the rates that have been agreed with them. I hope that that gives hon. Members some clarity about the timetable.
	On costs, I accept the commitment given by the Government that were we to impose additional burdens, we would provide the necessary funding but I hope hon. Members will agree that looked-after children have to be placed. There is a legislative imperative to do so. If we do not have sufficient foster carers, particularly in the local community, an on-the-spot decision tends to be taken. Often, the looked-after children are placed in extremely expensive residential accommodation out of the borough. My officials and I will need some convincing during our discussions that setting an appropriate and proper minimum foster care allowance will constitute an additional expense. It could lead to a change in the way in which we spend money, and to an expenditure saving that we could then reinvest in other services that support foster carers or looked-after children. We will keep this issue at the forefront of our minds, but we do not necessarily agree that such an allowance will lead to an increase in expenditure on looked-after children in whom local authorities already invest money.
	I do not want to suggest, as I had to do in Committee, that on these issues we are the libertarians and the Opposition are the Stalinists. However, we will not consider using a ring-fenced grant as a mechanism for implementing a minimum foster care system. We will have discussions with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, and the various voluntary organisations that represent foster carers. We want, in that partnership environment, to work through what are very complex issues and to establish a workable system.

Tim Loughton: I do not wish to appear too Stalinist, but is the Minister saying that there will be a saving, which I agree there will be? As we discussed in Committee, we are talking about private children's homes that cost £2,000 a week upwards compared with foster carers who cost several hundred pounds, but surely there has to be a lead-in process. Will the Minister make sure that the money is available for local authorities to ensure that foster carers are trained and in place—doing so will indeed cost money—even if the savings will come a few years down the line, when we will no longer have to rely so much on out-of-area placements?

Margaret Hodge: That is just the sort of detailed conversation that we need to engage in with our partners. It was in the light of such issues that I alluded to the "Choice Protects" grant and to the additional resources that we are putting into children's services during the comprehensive spending review period.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very easy simply to say that we will reduce the number of out-of-borough placements to the private sector? In fact, we need all these services, including specialist residential provision, so it is not a case of having one or the other. It is essential that we have such provision, and that it has the capacity to develop services for the most damaged children.

Margaret Hodge: I agree with my hon. Friend and I certainly respect his experience, which was gained during many years on the front line as a social worker. But equally, I hope that he agrees with me that it is in the interests of more looked-after children to provide them with the stability of a placement in a loving home with a foster carer. Whatever the shortages, if we can increase the number of such carers—we need to establish a far better basis for doing so than currently exists—using the creation of a national foster allowance system as one mechanism for doing so, that will improve the lives of looked-after children for whom such an environment is appropriate. Over time, that should lead to some savings for local authorities that currently do not commission in a particularly rational way the places that they require for such children.
	Given that Members want to speak about other issues, I shall deal briefly with the registration of private foster care. I agree with the House that this is a very important issue that we need to get right, which is why we have secured the relevant power through what is known as a sunset clause. As a result, if we cannot improve the current notification scheme, we can move immediately to a registration scheme without needing to return to the House to obtain primary legislation. The whole House agrees, as do I, that the current notification scheme is not working and is inadequate. But I hope that in the light of the additional powers that we are taking—powers to insist that awareness of the scheme be promoted, and that local authorities monitor their own notification schemes—Members will agree that it is worth allowing time to see whether the system works. With the best will in the world, even a registration scheme might not provide the safeguards and protection that we all seek for such children, who are sometimes the most vulnerable in our communities.

Jonathan R Shaw: My right hon. Friend knows my views on this matter. What criteria does she envisage the Department using to assess whether her proposed scheme is successful, particularly given that the number of private foster carers is not known because the figures are not collated?

Margaret Hodge: This is a difficult issue, but those authorities that are making huge efforts to ensure that the notification scheme works have a far greater number of notifications than those that, in my view, are not making adequate efforts. So monitoring the number of notifications will be just one of the mechanisms that we will use. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to this issue. We do need to get a better handle on the quantum of the problem, and to focus on the most vulnerable among the broad group of children who come under private fostering arrangements.
	I warmly thank Members for their welcome for the new clause. Rather than dividing on this issue I hope that we will unify, so that we can ensure that foster carers are rewarded properly, that they are not out of pocket in caring for looked-after children, and that we grow the foster care work force.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Children's Commissioner: functions

'(1)   The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the function of promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children in England.
	(2)   The Children's Commissioner may in particular under this section—
	(a)   encourage persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their rights, views and interests;
	(b)   advise the Secretary of State on the rights, views and interests of children;
	(c)   review and report on the effectiveness of—
	(i)   advice and advocacy services;
	(ii)   complaints procedures; and
	(iii)   inspection and whistle-blowing arrangements,
	   so far as relating to children;
	(d)   review and report on any other matter relating to the rights, views and interests of children.
	(3)   The Children's Commissioner must take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of his functions under this section, and in particular to—
	(a)   ensure that children are made aware of his function and how they may communicate with him;
	(b)   consult children, and organisations working with children, on the matters he proposes to review and report on under subsection (2)(c) or (d);
	(c)   ensure that the content of any material issued by the Commissioner or his staff, whether printed or in electronic or other form, which is intended to be used by children, takes account, so far as practicable, of the means of communication, level of understanding and usual language of the intended recipients.
	(4)   The Children's Commissioner must for the purposes of subsection (3) have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can make their views known.
	(5)   The Children's Commissioner or a person authorised by him may for the purposes of his function under this section at any reasonable time—
	(a)   enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of interviewing any child accommodated or cared for there; and
	(b)   if the child consents, interview the child in private.
	(6)   Any person exercising functions under any enactment must supply the Children's Commissioner with such information in that person's possession relating to those functions as the Children's Commissioner may reasonably request for the purposes of his function under this section (provided that the information is information which that person may, apart from this subsection, lawfully disclose to him).
	(7)   The Children's Commissioner may provide assistance to a child to bring legal proceedings where the child is unable to bring legal proceedings; and it appears to the Commissioner reasonable to do so and there is no other person or body likely to provide such assistance or take such action (or both).
	(8)   In considering for the purpose of his function under this section what constitutes the rights and interests of children (generally or so far as relating to a particular matter) the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	(9)   In subsection (8) the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989, subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force.'.—[Mrs. Brooke.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Powers of consideration and representation by Children's Commissioner for Wales—
	'(1)   Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14) (additional powers of consideration and representation) is amended as follows.
	(2)   Omit subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
	   "The Commissioner may consider, and make representations about, any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales to—
	(a)   the Assembly, and
	(b)   where the matter is not devolved and the Commissioner considers it appropriate, to the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or Government department.".'.
	New clause 3—Requirement to review working of Part 1 of the Act—
	'(1)   The Children's Commissioner shall—
	(a)   keep under review the working of Part 1 of this Act and in doing so consult with children and representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests;
	(b)   make reports on it to the Secretary of State in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
	(2)   The first report under this section shall be made as soon as is practicable after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Part.
	(3)   A subsequent report under this section shall be made at such time as the Children's Commissioner thinks fit, not being earlier than three years after the making of the last previous report.
	(4)   A report under this section—
	(a)   shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this Part; and
	(b)   may contain recommendations as to amendments to this Part which in the opinion of the Children's Commissioner are necessary or desirable.
	(5)   The Secretary of State shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament.'.
	New clause 13—Children's Commissioner: functions (No.2)—
	'(1)   The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the function of promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children in England.
	(2)   The Children's Commissioner may in particular under this section—
	(a)   encourage persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their rights, views and interests;
	(b)   advise the Secretary of State on the rights, views and interests of children;
	(c)   review and report on the effectiveness of—
	(i)   advice and advocacy services;
	(ii)   complaints procedures; and
	(iii)   inspection and whistle-blowing arrangements,
	   so far as relating to children;
	(d)   review and report on any other matter relating to the rights, views and interests of children.
	(3)   The Children's Commissioner must take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of his functions under this section, and in particular to—
	(a)   ensure that children are made aware of his function and how they may communicate with him;
	(b)   consult children, and organisations working with children, on the matters he proposes to review and report on under subsection (2)(c) or (d);
	(c)   ensure that the content of any material issued by the Commissioner or his staff, whether printed or in electronic or other form, which is intended to be used by children, takes account, so far as practicable, of the means of communication, level of understanding and usual language of the intended recipients.
	(4)   The Children's Commissioner must for the purposes of subsection (3) have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can made their views known.
	(5)   The Children's Commissioner or a person authorised by him may for the purposes of his function under this section at any reasonable time—
	(a)   enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of interviewing any child accommodated or cared for there; and
	(b)   if the child consents, interview the child in private.
	(6)   Any person exercising functions under any enactment must supply the Children's Commissioner with such information in that person's possession relating to those functions as the Children's Commissioner may reasonably request for the purposes of his function under this section (provided that the information is information which that person may, apart from this subsection, lawfully disclose to him).
	(7)   In considering for the purpose of his function under this section what constitutes the rights and interests of children (generally or so far as relating to a particular matter) the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
	(8)   In subsection (7) the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989, subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force.'.
	New clause 18—Exercise of functions in relation to children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—
	'(1)   It shall be the sole responsibility of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to—
	(a)   hold an inquiry on any matters as regards children in Wales; and
	(b)   consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Wales.
	(2)   It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland to—
	(a)   hold an inquiry on any matters as regards children in Scotland; and
	(b)   consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Scotland.
	(3)   It shall be the sole responsibility of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland to—
	(a)   hold an inquiry on any matters as regards children in Northern Ireland; and
	(b)   consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out clause 2.
	Amendment No. 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out 'take reasonable steps to'.
	Amendment No. 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part'.
	Amendment No. 44, in clause 4, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
	'(c)   ensure that direct services provided to children by the Commissioner or his staff in Wales whether formally or informally are provided in Welsh or English or both according to the wishes of the intended recipients.'.
	Amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
	'(6A)   In carrying out his functions under this section the Commissioner must take steps to ascertain the views of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children.'.
	Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 1, leave out clause 4.
	Amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 24, leave out clause 5.
	Amendment No. 45, in page 4, line 24, leave out clauses 5 to 7.
	Amendment No. 24, in clause 5, page 4, line 29, leave out '(12) of section 2' and insert—
	'(9) of section [Children's Commissioner: functions]'.
	Amendment No. 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 6, leave out '(12) of section 2' and insert—
	'(9) of section [Children's Commissioner: functions]'.
	Government amendment No. 28.
	Amendment No. 26, in clause 7, page 5, line 38, leave out '(12) of section 2' and insert—
	'(9) of section [Children's Commissioner: functions]'.
	Amendment No. 27, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, leave out '2(11) and (12)' and insert—
	'[Children's Commissioner: functions](8) and (9)'.
	Government amendment No. 30.
	Amendment No. 9, in schedule 1, page 44, line 19, at end insert—
	'(1A)   The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to involve children and representatives of children's organisations in the process of appointment of the Commissioner.'.
	Amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 45, line 31, leave out
	'and on such conditions (if any).'.

Annette Brooke: I think that the consensus has come to an end. I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendment No. 1, which would delete clause 2, as amended in Committee, to consequential amendments Nos. 24 to 27, and to amendment No. 4, which would leave out clause 4. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) very much hopes to speak to new clause 2, and on other issues pertaining particularly to Wales. As we are short of time, it might help if I said at the outset that we want to press new clauses 1 and 2 to a vote.
	The Minister will be aware that a wide range of organisations and individuals are enormously disappointed with the amendments to clause 2 that were recently passed in Committee. During the debate, it became apparent that the Government's views on the functions and role of the children's commissioner were fundamentally different from those who opposed the amendments, with little hope of convergence. Given the widespread welcome for a Children's Commissioner for England—I do indeed welcome the concept—it is surely right that we revisit the issues and reflect on the cross-party support given in the other place to a clause similar to new clause 1. Indeed, new clause 1 is also very similar to new clause 13, as proposed by the Conservatives.
	As a consequence of the Government's amendments, the children's commissioner now has the function of
	"promoting awareness of the views and interests of children".
	That contrasts with the much stronger statement resulting from cross-party amendments made in the other place, which would have given the commissioner the function of
	"promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests"
	of children. As the Children's Commissioner for Wales said:
	"What sort of 'champion' is it that does not advocate for the rights of the group of people they are championing?"
	We welcome the fact that the Government accepted at a very early stage an amendment in the other place whereby the commissioner "must"—rather than "may"—have regard to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. But the Government also required that the commissioner be concerned "in particular" with the five "outcome goals". The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded:
	"We consider that the confusion engendered by reincorporating in the Bill a duty to have regard both to the Convention and the five outcomes will risk downgrading the Convention from a framework to a background to the Commissioner's work . . . We conclude that it is unnecessary for the five outcomes listed in clause 2(3) as originally introduced to be reinstated. If the Government feels they must, they should be clearly placed within the context of the CRC."
	The Minister told the Committee that if the focus were simply on rights, it would limit the work that the commissioner could do on behalf of children. That is a point with which we have considerable difficulty.
	There is nothing narrow about the proposed focus on rights and interests. The convention on the rights of the child covers all aspects of childhood and we ratified that convention in 1991. It gives all babies and children a comprehensive set of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, 40 in all. Because of constraints on time, I shall not run through them all, but they cover education, health, sexual exploitation, adoption, children in trouble with the law and so forth. The convention provides a wide framework for the children's commissioner and it is not limiting in the way the Minister suggested. It is, indeed, a foundation on which everything else can be built.
	We oppose clause 4 because it gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry. The Government have given assurances that they foresee the power being used only in cases of extreme significance. However, the Secretary of State can already convene such an inquiry under existing powers.

Debra Shipley: Does the hon. Lady recall that, in Committee, the Minister for Children argued in favour of the Secretary of State having powers to direct? Does she agree that that is totally wrong and that the Secretary of State should not have such powers? The Secretary of State can already instigate inquiries and it is vital that the children's commissioner be independent of Government and free to comment on Government inquiries. Can the hon. Lady envisage circumstances in which a Government inquiry could have a specific political dimension, making the independence of the children's commissioner absolutely vital?

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I could not agree more with her, so I will cut a bit out of my speech. It is indeed vital that we have a genuinely independent children's champion.
	In Committee, the Minister said that the changes that she was proposing would
	"ensure that we have the very best commissioner in the world, built on our experience of the workings of commissioners in other countries."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 October 2004; c. 16.]
	All members of the Committee wanted the best commissioner in the world, but which other commissioner anywhere does not have the basic right and duty of promoting and safeguarding children's rights? None. The model proposed for our commissioner is far weaker than those that exist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand that the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children has written to the Minister expressing concern at the weakness of the legislation, suggesting that the Children's Commissioner for England might not be able to join the network. In other words, we cannot be part of the club.
	On Second Reading in the other place, my noble friend Baroness Walmsley said:
	"I was horrified to discover that the budget per child for the Northern Ireland Commissioner is £3.80, for every Welsh child it is £2.11, every Scottish child 98p, but the anticipated expenditure on every English child is only 24p"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1220.]
	Suspicion remains that the limiting of the role of the English commissioner is financial. I believe that that is quite fundamental.
	Briefly, we welcome Govt amendment No. 30—the Government were listening there—and also have considerable sympathy for new clause 3. I am mindful that many other hon. Members have important contributions to make, so I shall end there.

Martyn Jones: I rise this time, I hope, to speak to the correct group of amendments. It all shows how keen I am to get my views on the record. [Hon. Members: "Excellent."] I support, as do other members of the Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). We are co-signatories in respect of her new clause and of mine; they are complementary.
	My amending provision is designed totally to remove the role of the Children's Commissioner for England out of the Welsh equation. At the same time the other extends the role of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive service to children from Wales wherever they are in care or in need of care. Sadly, the Government have refused to deal with that matter to the satisfaction of the Committee, of non-governmental organisations across Wales and of the Children's Commissioner for Wales himself.
	The Government say that they do not want to extend devolution on this matter, but extending powers at this stage would not affect the current devolution settlement one iota. Acceptance of the amendment would not give a single additional power to the National Assembly for Wales, but would allow the Children's Commissioner for Wales to carry out his duties properly and to help Welsh children in all aspects of their lives, wherever they are in the UK.
	I cannot emphasise enough to the House that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is an independent body and not a National Assembly body and neither is the commissioner's role to be an adjunct to the Welsh Assembly Government. He stands alone and should not be mixed up in the devolution process, as the Government seem to fear is likely to happen.
	Members of the Welsh Affairs Committee have rehearsed the arguments on many occasions over this specific point. Indeed, the Committee conducted a report, "The Powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales", and we took evidence from the Minister for Children herself. The amendments advocate a logical and sensible move for the children of Wales, and I can assure the House that everyone in Wales agrees with what they propose. I would not have added my name to the amendments and new clauses if I were swimming against the tide of Welsh opinion. Children's organisations and the National Assembly for Wales believe that this is the right move for Welsh children and that the Government are wrong on this specific issue. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the acid test is how legislation operates in practice.

Don Touhig: I congratulate the Committee on its excellent work, as reflected in the report, but is my hon. Friend aware that, in his annual report, the Children's Commissioner for Wales made it plain that he was able to make representations to the Government on any matter affecting children in Wales? It works.

Martyn Jones: I have no doubt that he will attempt to make it work, but I also know from the evidence that he gave to the Committee—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is being selective—that he does not accept that the drafting of the legislation would make his job any easier. In fact, he said that it would make it more difficult.

Martin Caton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate shows that we are not asking the Government to move very far? We are asking only to formalise and make proper an arrangement that already exists informally. The point is that the Children's Commissioner for Wales is not a creature of the Assembly—it is completely independent—so the huge constitutional crisis that Ministers seem to fear will not arise.

Martyn Jones: Indeed. There is no crisis. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has already been devolved to the Assembly. We are talking about something that is far less of a move than that. I simply cannot understand why the Government are so intransigent on this matter. I know that the Minister wants what is best for children in Wales, so she should listen more to what the NGOs and charities in Wales are saying; they want the same thing.
	I am a huge supporter of the concept of draft legislation, but if the Government want Select Committees to undertake detailed pre-legislative scrutiny, they will have to accept that they should listen on occasions to what those Committees say. This is one such occasion and I ask the Government to accept the amendments in order to make a good and well-intentioned Bill even better.

Tim Loughton: The consensus is well and truly over at this stage, and the great melange of amendments and new clauses in the group covers a wide range of subjects about the children's commissioner. I shall speak briefly to new clause 1, proposed by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), which we shall support. It is similar to our new clause 13.
	In Committee debates about the children's commissioner, we applied five principles. First, the new children's commissioner should be independent of the Government and a champion for children. Secondly, the commissioner should be powerful enough to do his or her job properly, regardless of Government schemes and funding shortfalls. Thirdly, he should fully engage with children and young people and also gain their confidence, as Baroness Ashton said in the other place. Fourthly, the children's commissioner should have a clear status in the context of other UK commissioners and other agencies and interested parties. Fifthly, the commissioner should be accountable to all of the above.
	I fear that the way in which the Government have emasculated the powers of the commissioner has spoiled the cross-party consensus. I see the Minister for Children responding with an enormous Cheshire cat grin on her face as though she has just killed the biggest rat of all. There was enormous cross-party consensus to put together a comprehensive new clause 2 in the Lords. She has completely torn the guts out of it.
	Let us remind ourselves of what the Government have reversed. They have completely left out the mention of children's rights. Instead, the children's commissioner will be promoting awareness of children's views. Children have no rights in the Bill; it is rights-lite, rights-free. In Committee, I offered the Minister the comparison of considering how feeble the Disability Rights Commission would appear if its general function were simply to promote awareness of the views of disabled people. The same would be true of the Commission for Racial Equality or the Equal Opportunities Commission.
	The Minister made a series of amendments rather than just replacing new clause 2, and I have never been sure why she did that. The Bill dilutes the review and reporting powers, removing the advocacy and whistleblowing arrangements. It declines to beef up the children's commissioner's obligations to make children aware that they can consult him, and restores the Government's limited checklist on what sort of children's views and interests—not rights—he can take notice of. It reinforces the commissioner's inability to undertake inquiries into individual cases, even when they have implications for children generally. That is why the original clause, to which the Government have reverted, was described in the upper Chamber as discriminatory and castrated and as giving the children's commissioner the powers of a glorified public relations consultant. All along, the Government have claimed that they have done what children wanted, but nowhere have they provided evidence of that.
	Five references to children's rights have been removed. The provision to support individual children was removed. The references to reviewing and reporting on the effectiveness of advice and advocacy and on whistleblowing and inspection arrangements were removed. The Government reinserted their outcome goals in part 1 of the Bill.
	The Minister said that, in Committee, Ministers stated that the Government would ensure that they had the best commissioner in the world, built on their experience of the workings of commissioners in other countries. The Children's Rights Alliance has been completely unable to find a commissioner anywhere who does not have the basic duty of promoting and safeguarding children's rights, which means, by the looks of things, that the Children's Commissioner for England will not be permitted to be part of the European network.
	We want to restore the original clause 2 that was inserted in the Bill in the upper House, as it has been emasculated. We will support new clause 1 in endeavouring to do that, although we think that new clause 13, removing subsection (7)—about which we, and the Government, have some qualms—would be the best way to do that.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are all about involving children, which is what the Bill is supposed to be all about. Amendment No. 11 would take the short phrase "take reasonable steps" from subsection (4) so that the children's commissioner must involve children in the discharge of his functions. That is what we have assumed all the way along, so why must "reasonable steps" be placed in the way of the commissioner's doing that?
	In the first schedule to the Bill, we want to involve children much more in the selection of the children's commissioner in the first place. Amendment No. 9 says that the appointment of the commissioner should involve children and children's organisations. Consider the status of the other children's commissioners. In Wales, the appointment is made by the First Secretary of the National Assembly after taking account of the advice of the relevant committee, the views of relevant children and the advice of a selection panel independent of the Assembly. In Northern Ireland, the commissioner is appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly, independently of the Government. In Scotland, the commissioner is appointed by the Queen on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament. But in England, he will be appointed by the Secretary of State. That is very different from the arrangements that pertain in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is why the English commissioner is not going to be the best in the world. In a phrase often quoted in the House of Lords, it is all about big ears and no teeth.
	Among the other amendments, one originally tabled by Lord Northbourne places in the Bill a necessity for the children's commissioner to take into account the views of parents and carers when dealing with children. Parents have a very special status, the most special status. The Government trotted out the usual routine about it being iniquitous to specify one set of people or organisations, but we think that that is tosh when it applies to parents, who clearly have a special status, hence amendment No. 13.
	The Government have dealt disgracefully with all the hard work that went into putting together a comprehensive new clause 2 that had support across the upper House and has support on all Benches in this House, other than the Government Front Bench. That work was about making the children's commissioner a real children's champion who would stand up to represent children and be a part of their lobbies. The Government have taken away all those additional powers that would have made the Children's Commissioner for England the most powerful and impressive of all, and that is a missed opportunity.
	I shall not refer at length to concerns about the Welsh dimension. I share them, and we tabled amendments on that in Committee. There will be enormous confusion over the relationship between the English commissioner and those of the other three nations of the United Kingdom. Given that we have devolution, let us have a system under which the four commissioners can talk to each other equally without treading on each other's toes, as will invariably happen. We foresee great problems in the future, which is a pity. This is a missed opportunity, and I ask the House to support new clause 1.

Julie Morgan: I speak in support of amendment No. 34, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), and new clause 1.
	We discussed issues relating to Wales at length in Standing Committee and in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. We have taken a lot of evidence, as my hon. Friend, who chairs the Committee, has said. The Government should listen to the Welsh Affairs Committee, whose views have been totally ignored. It is shameful that the Government have not taken more notice of what we have said.
	The Government should also have taken more notice of the first children's commissioner to be set up in the United Kingdom, Peter Clarke, who has been in post for three years now. They did not even consult him about the shape and form of the new Children's Commissioner for England. That was a terrible failing. This is a good Bill and it is sad that issues remain that could have been sorted out. There is much to rejoice in, including today's good news from the Government, but it is sad that we have had to raise the Welsh dimension again today.
	The overwhelming view in Wales is that the Government's proposals in clause 5, which amendment No. 34 aims to delete, would undermine the Children's Commissioner for Wales and be confusing to children in Wales. The Northern Ireland and Scotland commissioners also find the proposals undermining.
	Clarity and simplicity seem to be the keys to any successful office. The Children's Commissioner for Wales has had a big impact and made a lot of difference to consideration of children and their rights. The Government have not consulted him or listened to him. What is happening is undermining him. Their proposals are a setback for Wales.
	The Children's Commissioner for Wales already has the power to listen to any concerns raised by children. He has been into prisons to see children and he has related his findings to the police and worked hard on such non-devolved matters. Clause 5 gives the English children's commissioner the function of promoting awareness in Wales about non-devolved matters, without any proposal for him to have even a base in Wales.

Betty Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that the president of the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children recently wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children emphasising that, under the job description that has been given, it is unlikely that the commissioner would be able to join the network. Not only is the commissioner in England likely to be a watered-down version of the commissioners already in place in the other UK nations, but the protection afforded would compare badly with what is offered by counterparts in Europe. I do not believe that English children are uniquely undeserving of a real commissioner.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I support what she says.
	The English children's commissioner will operate without knowledge of the Welsh context or of the interface between devolved and non-devolved matters. Peter Clarke and the children's commissioners for Scotland and for Northern Ireland have condemned the proposed model and said that it is a recipe for confusion. Peter Clarke said that if he visited secure accommodation in Neath and saw two children, he would be responsible for the one who had come in through the care system but not for the other if that child had come in through the juvenile justice system, because the latter child would come under the remit of the English children's commissioner.
	That is bound to cause problems and difficulties. Our duty is to children in Wales, and we must ensure that those who have problems are clear about where they should take them. It is very sad that we have been unable to come to an arrangement that is satisfactory to everyone in Wales.
	Clause 5 also allows the English Secretary of State to direct the English children's commissioner to undertake inquiries in Wales. That means that an English Minister can ask the English children's commissioner to conduct an inquiry, in Wales, into a case involving a Welsh child. That is a recipe for confusion, and it calls into question the independence of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. I do not see how a person who can be directed by a Secretary of State can be called "independent".
	The Government are pinning their hopes on the commissioners being able to liaise with each other by means of a memorandum of understanding. This House should be giving out the clear message that the arrangements that we are making will best serve the interests of children in Wales. I am sorry that the Government have not listened to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Children's Commissioner for Wales or to children's organisations in Wales, because it means that they have not listened to those who work most closely with children in Wales.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee produced an excellent report on this matter, but the Government's response was very disappointing. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell the House what she intends to do to tackle those problems.

Margaret Hodge: I want to begin by assuring all hon. Members that the Government have listened to other opinions, throughout this debate and in connection with every clause in the Bill. The range of amendments that the Government have tabled, in respect of the children's commissioner and of other matters, is proof of that. Not every interested party will agree on every aspect of the Bill, but that is another issue. We have been engaged in a thorough process and have tried to listen to all the issues that people have raised.
	In the little time that remains, I want to go back over the principal issues, and the question of whether we are establishing a powerful and strong champion for children. I shall then turn to the issues raised by those of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Wales.
	I repeat what I said in Committee: I believe that the commissioner for English children that the Bill establishes—who will also have responsibility for British children on non-devolved issues—will be an extremely powerful and effective champion on behalf of children. In framing the commissioner's powers and duties, we have had regard for the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is why we listened to the arguments in support of amendments tabled in the upper House. As a result, the commissioner must have regard for the UNCRC, which proves that his work has its basis in children's rights.
	However, we have also said from the start that we do not wish to establish in England a commissioner whose primary purpose is to police individual rights. A panoply of structures exists already—in the courts and various tribunals—that ensures that individuals can pursue their rights. The commissioner will have the duty to oversee those systems, ensuring that the complaint mechanisms and tribunals work and that the courts defend individual rights.
	Yet we also want the commissioner to do more. We want him to look at the outcomes that children and young people say are important, and at the much wider picture of children's lives. He would report to Parliament and elsewhere on all those important matters. As I said in Committee, if a commissioner were in place today, he would be looking at matters such as how children and young people are portrayed in the media, their position in the criminal justice system, and child obesity. The commissioner may well also look at other important issues, but if he had to focus on policing individual rights, he would have no time to do anything else.
	I assure the House that under the general functions laid out in clause 2 the commissioner will be independent and able to look at any issue or question. He will be able to initiate inquires into any case that has wider significance and public policy implications. That is another example of how the Government have listened.
	The commissioner will have total discretion over the budgets that he commands, except for the normal considerations of propriety. Another sign of the Government's willingness to listen is the fact that the commissioner will have access to children—a provision that we introduced to the Bill. In addition, the Government have amended the Bill to ensure that the commissioner can seek responses to the inquiries and recommendations contained in reports that he compiles. The commissioner will report annually to Parliament, and I hope that the relevant Select Committees will hold him to account.
	Finally, I remind the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that the word "rights" does not appear in the legislation setting out the functions of the disability rights commissioner.
	I turn now to the issues raised by those of my hon. Friends with constituencies in Wales. Like them, the Government are anxious to ensure that children in Wales are no less well served by their children's commissioner than their counterparts in England would be. However, we must work within the devolution settlement as it stands. I know that some of my hon. Friends find that difficult, but we do not want the children's commissioner—who will report every year to this House through the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—to relinquish all responsibility for matters in Wales that remain the responsibility of Westminster.
	Certain hon. Members have argued that we cannot change the devolution settlement in the context of this debate. I agree, and that is why we tabled three new clauses in Committee to clarify the role of the children's commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to enable all the UK commissioners to work together on non-devolved matters. Those amendments were accepted and now form part of the Bill.
	We envisage that, in practice, the commissioners will draw up informal ways of working together on non-devolved issues that will be child friendly while at the same time remaining within the terms of the devolution settlement. To deprive children in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales of the services of the children's commissioner in respect of non-devolved matters would not enhance those children's national identity or culture. They will simply lose the services of a commissioner who has a general overview and represents all our children in matters affecting the United Kingdom as a whole that are decided in Westminster. They will therefore be worse off than their counterparts in England. I cannot believe that that is the wish of my hon. Friends in tabling those amendments or of the House, and I hope—
	It being half past Two o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Powers of consideration and representation by Children's Commissioner for Wales

'(1)   Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14) (additional powers of consideration and representation) is amended as follows.
	(2)   Omit subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
	   "The Commissioner may consider, and make representations about, any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales to—
	(a)   the Assembly, and
	(b)   where the matter is not devolved and the Commissioner considers it appropriate, to the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or Government department.".'.—[Mr. Roger Williams.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Appeals about information held on databases

'The Secretary of State shall establish an appeals procedure by which individuals referred to on a database established under regulations under section 12 (explicitly or implicitly) in respect of a child whose case has been referred to that database may challenge the inclusion of information.'.—[Tim Loughton.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 16—Procedures in relation to the processing of personal data—
	'(1)   This section shall have effect in relation to the provisions described in section 12 and the processing of personal data.
	(2)   The Secretary of State may not make any regulations under the provisions of section 12, or issue guidance or a direction under those provisions, unless the Information Commissioner has been provided with the opportunity to make representations as to any degradation in the protection afforded to data subjects or to any degradation in the effectiveness of any data protection principle which would be caused by the implementation of that regulation, guidance or direction.
	(3)   If the Secretary of State issues regulations, guidance or direction under the provisions of section 12 which, in the view of the Information Commissioner, degrade the protection afforded to data subjects or degrade the effectiveness of any data protection principle, the Information Commissioner may publish any relevant information, correspondence, document or advice which relates to the degradation in question.
	(4)   For the purposes of this Act, section 10(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29) (exemptions from right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress) shall apply as if it read as follows—
	"(2)   Subsection (1) does not apply in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1, 2 or 4 of Schedule 2 is met."
	(5)   Personal data processed by any data controller for a purpose specified in regulations, guidance or direction made or issued under the provisions of section 12 shall not be processed for any other purpose unless that purpose is also specified in regulations made under powers authorised by this Act.
	(6)   For the purpose of this Act, "personal data" shall mean any data which relate to a living individual who can be directly or indirectly identified—
	(a)   from those data, or
	(b)   from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller.
	(7)   For the purpose of this section—
	(a)   the definition of "data", "processing", "data controller" and "data subject" shall be the same as in section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998;
	(b)   the "data protection principles" are the principles described in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998;
	(c)   the "Information Commissioner" is the Commissioner established by the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.'.
	Amendment No. 46, in page 9, line 32, leave out clause 12.Amendment No. 17, in clause 12, page 9, line 39, leave out 'one or more databases' and insert
	'a United Kingdom-wide database and facilitate regional databases where appropriate'.
	Amendment No. 2, in clause 12, page 10, line 15, leave out paragraph (g).
	Amendment No. 18, in clause 12, page 10, line 15, leave out from 'of' to end of line 16 and insert
	'concern for his welfare, such basis for concern having been set out in national guidance;'.
	Amendment No. 3, in clause 12, page 10, line 17, leave out paragraph (h).
	Amendment No. 38, in clause 12, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
	'(   )   The requirement to disclose information for agencies specified in subsection (6)(b) will not apply if disclosure would be detrimental to the child's welfare or safeguarding.'.
	Amendment No. 19, in clause 12, page 11, line 2 , at end insert—
	'(7A)   The requirement to disclose information for agencies specified in subsection (6)(b) will not apply if disclosure would be detrimental to the child's welfare or safeguarding.'.

Tim Loughton: We now come to what could be, barring the smacking debate that we shall hold later, the most contentious part of the Bill and the one about which the Opposition have the most concerns. I want to talk to clause 12 as a whole. Amendment no. 46 would delete it, but other amendments in the group, as well as new clause 4 itself, would improve and make acceptable the whole section about databases.
	This is an important part of the Bill. In Committee, we spent more than a morning on it, rightly, yet at the end of that time we had few assurances from the Minister for Children, Young People and Families about how the provisions would work, so we subsequently decided to vote against the whole clause. The upper House made some improvements to the clause, but although they were welcome they did not go nearly far enough.
	In Committee, the Minister mentioned that she hoped our fears would be assuaged by the publication of the consultation document on the whole database system, which duly took place last week. We are grateful for that consultation document, but that is all it is—a consultation document. It is not a White Paper; it does not show a firm direction for the Government to take. The responses will not be in until the end of January, yet we are being asked, at this late stage of the Bill's progress, to write the Government a large blank cheque to set up powerful databases that would include each and every one of the more than 11 million children in this country.
	The 10 trailblazer projects—pilots—being set up to try to investigate how such schemes could work are only halfway through their task. That work is being extended until March 2005 and the projects have just been granted second-tier funding, yet we are being asked to give the Secretary of State enormous powers to set up databases, about which there remain a lot of unanswered questions. The Government do not even know what the final identity and nature of those databases will be.
	Even more worrying is the fact that only in the last week or so have we started to hear details about the Government's integrated children's systems, which, I gather, are to replace child protection registers by December 2005. They will be more detailed than child protection registers and will contain children's social care case records. They will operate in parallel with other case record systems, such as the NHS care record system for health practitioners.
	The Minister has pledged £30 million to the project over the next two years, yet that was not mentioned once during the entire proceedings of the Bill in the upper House, on Second Reading or in Committee. Not once did the Minister allude to the fact that another much larger database is being constructed, for which money is already committed, and which will replace child protection registers.
	Why was that not mentioned? How will the new system interact with the databases that we are discussing in the Bill? How will information be transferred? What arrangements have been made for security of access under the new systems? In answer to my written question
	"what arrangements are already in existence to register children on a national register",
	the Minister replied:
	"There are no arrangements in existence to register children on a national register."—[Official Report, 13 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 634W.]
	Why was that?
	What is this proposal if it is not a national register? We need much more information than we have been given so far.
	Yet more alarm bells are sounding. The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, warned in an article in The Times earlier in the year that we risk
	"sleepwalking into a surveillance society".
	The arrangements have already been referred to as "Big Brother for children" in The Guardian. Children Now magazine recently warned:
	"We need to avoid making professionals slaves to technology by placing undue burdens on them to record information. And we should question whether the benefits of storing copious information about children are offset by the disadvantages of information overload and creeping surveillance."
	I share those worries.
	We said from the start that we are not against the principle of databases. We need databases to protect vulnerable children, but they should contain only minimal information and should not be a substitute for professionals talking to each other. Their scope should be limited to vulnerable children, rather than every single child in the country, because the system will otherwise be impractical and unworkable.

Liz Blackman: The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged Lord Laming's recommendation that information sharing is absolutely vital. He clearly welcomed the amendments to the provisions proposed by the Lords. He was complimentary about some of the information that is coming from his own trailblazer. He has asked for details about the consultation process throughout the passage of the Bill, and he now has them. Is he not just grandstanding when we should be getting on with cracking these thorny issues and making information sharing a reality for the safety of all our children?

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is essential to make information sharing a reality, but although we are told that the method in the Bill is the only way of doing that, we do not know exactly how it will work. Information sharing is a sensitive subject, as I shall illustrate with comments made by the British Medical Association and sexual health clinics. We need to get the system right or it could be entirely counter-productive. People will not present themselves if they do not want information to be shared by others, so although the principle of information sharing is right, we need a proper system. We have said all along that we do not understand how putting the names of 11.5 million children on a database—we do not yet know the extent of the other details that might be included—will benefit the tens of thousands of children who could realistically be described as children at risk or vulnerable children.

Hilton Dawson: The hon. Gentleman is entirely missing the point, which is surely that it is difficult to define the children who are at risk. The Government's proposal would flag up causes of concern among professionals, which would help to identify the children who are missed under existing systems—they will certainly be missed under any of his proposals.

Tim Loughton: We will come on to the definition of "cause for concern" in a moment because that is another worry. I still cannot understand how overloading a system with the details of 11.5 million children would help those who are most at risk. Many of the missing children to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly often refers—we debated them in Committee—will remain missing if such databases are in place because their parents, carers or private fosterers often want them to remain missing, but that is an entirely separate issue.
	I want to pose some more questions to the Minister, although I want other hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak. She has said:
	"we are not good at establishing IT systems"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 240.]
	We do not know how close we are to having available for the database information technology that would be interoperable with other services. We have received no assurances about security of access. We do not know which identifying marks will be used—will they be NHS or national insurance numbers? Clause 12(4)(h) is a catch-all provision that states that
	"information of such other description, not including medical records or other personal records, as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify"
	may be included on the databases. What does that mean? What could be included? How long will the information be kept on the system? How will the system address the Soham loophole? Will information on children be kept after they reach 18?
	Several problems have emerged due to conflicts in the proposals since the publication of the consultation document. A range of listed persons or bodies will be compelled to disclose information. There will be no caveats or exceptions to that requirement, except for the medical ones that I mentioned. When the Minister was asked in Committee about professional judgment, which we support, she said that permitting it would
	"cause confusion because it would mean that practitioners would have to think about whether they should enter the fact that they are working with a child on to the database. The practitioner would have to apply a test whether disclosing the information that they were being asked to disclose would be detrimental to the child's welfare. We want to provide practitioners with certainty about using the database, not uncertainty."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 October 2004; c. 263.]
	That effectively overrides the essential need for professional judgment to be applied, although we were promised that throughout the passage of the Bill. What will be the penalties for non-disclosure? Who will judge whether a case of non-disclosure was intentional or accidental? What will happen following a case of non-disclosure?
	It is interesting to note that paragraph 2.19 of the consultation document states that a practitioner can override a professional duty of confidentiality to place a flag on the database. However, paragraphs 2.22 and 3.25 say that a practitioner may not be able to share information because of a duty of confidentiality. That raises the amusing possibility that two practitioners could flag the database and contact each other, yet be unable to discuss their reasons for doing so—such is the craziness of the consultation document and the Minister's proposals.
	We have received strong expressions of concern from many professionals. The BMA asked:
	"How do Ministers envisage collating information required under Clause 9  . . . Will they use the route of the automated Exeter Registration System  . . . run by the PCOs to collate the information? Whose responsibility will it be to provide the information—primary care organisations or individual GP practices? What impact will the requirements have on GP practices and primary care?"
	It understands that
	"the database is expected to include the GPs' name and contact details for every child under 18 on their lists rather than for children about whom practitioners have a concern. The Minister appears to be saying that it is also the practitioner's responsibility to notify the data manager each time a child leaves a practice list, and every time a child registers with a new practice  . . . Each practice could have around 440 children on its list and the BMA will need to explore with the Department of Health"
	how the logistics and any extra work load requirements will be addressed.
	I recently received a letter from Brook Advisory Centres saying:
	"We are particularly concerned that young people's attendance at sexual health services might have to be notified to information databases. This concern was not allayed by the amendment during the Bill's passage through the House of Lords . . . Research has consistently demonstrated that confidentiality is of paramount importance for young people using contraceptive and sexual health services. Concerns about how far confidentiality is protected in General Practices and other sexual health services are among the issues most frequently raised by users of the Brook Young People's Information Service, which is accessed by 17,000 young people a year."
	As one user of the service said:
	"I think it is an utter disgrace. Next they will be printing barcodes on the insides of your wrists. I know I would think twice about seeking any help or advice, instead of listening to street tales about contraception etc. It would be ridiculous and a bad move."
	Brook and many children's charities are worried about how the database system will work.
	Given that the Government are proposing such an important step change to the way in which we put information about each of our children on systems, they need to be better prepared and further down the road than they are at present. If they do not give us the real assurances that we need, they should consider removing the clause from the Bill. They could then do the work on it that is required and bring it back as a part of a criminal justice Bill. Such legislation could address the Soham loophole and related problems with databases that we have at the moment.
	New clause 4, which we did not get to discuss in Committee, would set up an appeals procedure. There is no appeals procedure in the Bill that relates to any of the databases. There is therefore no defence against wrong information being placed on a database—wrong information that may be vexatious, which has been placed there as a result of a complaint made by a child against a teacher or a parent. Those records—we do not know the extent of what may be kept—may be kept for an indeterminate period and if used may count against the person mentioned. Surely, as with any other such database, there should be a mechanism by which people who want to challenge the veracity and relevance of the information stored about them can do so. There are no safeguards in the Bill, and that is a deep worry. Wrong information about people could be placed on the database either accidentally or intentionally, and their lives and records could be unjustifiably blighted as a result.
	None of that detracts from the requirement, the necessity and the desirability of placing on the database worrying information about those who might be dangerous to vulnerable people. That is what databases should be about. However, we need proper checks and balances. At no point during the passage of the Bill have the Government provided reassurances on how an appeals mechanism could work and how long the information will be kept.
	Amendment No. 17 would limit the Secretary of State to setting up one database. We now know why the Government resisted a similar amendment in Committee, saying that it might be appropriate for other databases to be set up. We are to have databases coming out of our ears, it would appear. The Minister claimed that accepting the amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from setting up a regional or a London-wide database, for example. There is a strong case for a London-wide database because of the nature of and interaction between all the boroughs in London, and the Climbié case clearly underlined that. I have no problem with that, but the Bill as it stands could facilitate it through co-operation between authorities.
	In order to allay the Minister's objections to the amendment that we moved in Committee, we have slightly changed the wording so that it refers to facilitating "regional databases where appropriate". As we have gone that far to accommodate the Minister's concerns, perhaps she will tell us which other databases, about which we do not yet know, she envisages the Secretary of State will need to set up and which the amendment would prevent.
	Amendment No. 18 is about the definition of "cause for concern". Hon. Members have mentioned the reference to it in clause 12(4)(g). This strange phrase has come out of the blue. To what types of concern does it refer? It would appear that it is intended to be all-encompassing: any concern about a child's behaviour, circumstances or developmental progress. By what standards are children and parents to be measured and a judgment on concern to be made?
	As the Barnardo's briefing said:
	"Cause for concern is not a recognised criteria and will include unclear and subjective information of unproven worth, which may lead to inappropriate interventions while leaving vulnerable children at risk. Cause for concern is not a standard used or understood by the caring professions. Nor does it appear in any other child welfare or health legislation."
	It certainly does not appear in the Children Act 1989. That contains
	"clear definitions of where local authorities can and must act when the child is in need. The child-in-need threshold is defined in statute and is associated with a range of additional powers in the supporting schedule. The Bill as currently drafted does not give professionals a common standard of that kind."
	We need qualification of what the phrase really means. If we do not know what it means, practitioners in the field who will have to put the legislation into practice daily—GPs, social workers, teachers, the school nurse, the police—will be confused. They need to operate under one standard—hence the amendment suggests that we identify "cause for concern" and that a basis for it should be set out in national guidance. As I said in Committee, that guidance should be distributed among the professional bodies concerned, to ensure that all professionals sing from the same song sheet and operate under similar thresholds.
	Amendment No. 38, which we have co-signed with the Liberals, and amendment No. 19, which we have tabled alone, are about not disclosing information if it would be detrimental to the child's welfare. That is self-explanatory, and we went into it at length in Committee. Extraordinarily, the Minister again did not take the point on board, although it is clearly in the interests of vulnerable children that such a provision should be in the Bill. We hope that the slight re-wording will make it more acceptable.

David Hinchliffe: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments on databases. Obviously, I was not privy to discussions in Committee, but I have followed carefully his arguments on Second Reading and this afternoon. Do I understand him correctly in assuming that he is arguing that there should be a London-wide database and regional databases—such as one in west Yorkshire, for example—but not a national database? If so, what assumption is he making about the lack of mobility of families? The database that he suggests would not cover somebody moving from London to Leeds, but in my experience that happens quite regularly.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why I have been suggesting exactly the reverse throughout proceedings on the Bill. We are in favour of local databases that join up local professionals and which would probably come under the aegis of the director of children's services. We need greater clarification of how that information would be submitted and acted on, and at what point an intervention by social workers would be triggered. I am in favour of that for vulnerable children, such as those on the at-risk register and those who are looked after.
	For exactly the reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I am also in favour of a national database—information for which would be passed from authorities that flag up children on their own databases. The most vulnerable children are usually the most mobile. A child on the radar of Newcastle social services who disappears and ends up in Brighton would need to be the subject of a central exchange of information, so that the social services director in Brighton could check on a national database for any form. The decision on whether intervention should occur should be left to the relevant authorities in the area where the child resides, with or without parents. We absolutely need a national database, but 11.5 million children do not need to be on it. We must concentrate on the most vulnerable children, to whom the most resources should be devoted. That is the great difference between us.
	Clause 12 is very important and we shall certainly be pressing our amendments to the vote unless we receive some severe assurances from the Minister.

Harry Cohen: I wish the Minister well with the Bill. Children need the protection afforded by this legislation. There have been too many horror stories of the system failing to co-ordinate the activities of professionals and children have been killed or abused as a consequence. However, there needs to be augmented protection of individuals from Ministers taking sweeping powers in establishing one or several information databases, which could interfere with private and family life—which, after all, is protected under article 8 of the United Nations convention on human rights. Therefore, my sole intervention on proceedings on this Bill is the tabling of new clause 16, which would go a long way to addressing the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Committee warned of the human rights problem in paragraph 109 of its 19th report, which states:
	"We remain concerned about the lack of detail contained on the face of the Bill and the breadth of the regulation-making powers being conferred on the Secretary of State in a context involving serious interferences with Article 8 rights."
	Another reason why the Minister should accept my new clause is that she may have been misdirected a little by her officials' analysis of the Data Protection Act 1998. For instance, in her written evidence to the Joint Committee, published in the Committee's report on page 24, in reply to the question:
	"What is the proposed relationship between this legislation and the Data Protection Principles in the Data Protection Act?",
	she said:
	"We expect the databases to fully comply with the Data Protection Act and do not want to make any special arrangements under data protection for them."
	To my mind, that answer is clearly wrong, as clause 12 contains a host of special arrangements such as the wide-ranging ministerial powers that can be used to neutralise the data protection principles.
	Let me give a background example to show why subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 16 are needed. In Scotland, the collection of dates of birth on the poll tax form was not deemed excessive because it was prescribed in regulations. In England and Wales, a tribunal ruled that it was excessive, because there was no need to collect everybody's date of birth. That did not conform with the data protection principles. That is what happened in England and Wales when the Data Protection Act applied. In Scotland, the opposite happened under ministerial regulations. Therefore, statutory prescription specifically weakened the privacy protection afforded by the Act, and I think that the same will happen under this Bill.
	In clause 12, we see statutory provisions that could weaken data protection principles. Under subsection (6)(a), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify personal data that could be excessive for the purpose, and that neutralises the third principle of the 1998 Act. Under subsection (6)(b) to (f), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify in regulations disclosures that could otherwise be incompatible with the purpose of collection, and that neutralises the second principle. Under subsection (6)(g), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify in regulations a long, or even infinite, period of retention of data, and that neutralises the fifth principle. Under subsection (6)(h), the Secretary of State has the flexibility to specify in regulations criteria that allow inaccurate or out-of-date personal data to be retained on the database, and that neutralises the fourth principle.
	Under subsection (13)(a) to (c), the Secretary of State can specify a level of security that is lower than the appropriate managerial level, and that neutralises the seventh principle. Under subsection (13)(d), the Secretary of State can transfer data abroad, outside the European economic area, and that neutralises the eighth principle.
	In effect, the Bill gives the Minister control over how virtually all the data protection principles apply to personal data. The Information Commissioner cannot effectively enforce the principles if the Minister has used her powers in a way that degrades the protection afforded by each principle.
	It will not be satisfactory for the Minister to give reassurance about consultation with the Information Commissioner. The point that I am raising is that there is no counterbalance in the Bill to stop any future Minister using the powers to set aside or degrade the protection afforded by the data protection principles. That is why, when the Minister told the Joint Committee that
	"We expect the databases to fully comply with the Data Protection Act and do not want to make any special arrangements under data protection for them",
	I think that she is wrong. She is seeking powers that could be used to undermine any of the principles.
	Subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 16 require the Secretary of State when issuing guidance or drafting regulations to allow time for the Information Commissioner to make representations on whether the protection afforded by the data protection principles or the protection in relation to data subjects is likely to be degraded. The Information Commissioner is also empowered to publish any relevant material that in his view shows degrading of the protection afforded by the Data Protection Act caused by a ministerial decision. That would also enable Parliament to be kept informed and have a debate if that was deemed necessary.
	New clause 16(4) removes the Secretary of State's ability to override the right to object, which is granted in the Data Protection Act, and slightly to widen the right to object to meet the Joint Committee's concern. The right to object in the Act applies only in exceptional circumstances. There are two tests: the processing has to cause substantial distress and damage, and that distress and damage has to be unwarranted or unjustified. In many cases, there may be distress that is not substantial, or there may be distress but the processing is completely justifiable.
	Such cases have been identified by the Joint Committee in paragraph 114 which states:
	"The information which may be included on the database about a child goes beyond purely objective facts about a child, such as their name, address and date of birth. It includes information, such as contact details of persons providing services including health services, which may reveal very sensitive information about the child, such as the fact that a seventeen year old girl has been referred to family planning services. It also includes 'the existence of any cause for concern' about a child, which is an extremely subjective and open-ended phrase which is almost bound to include very sensitive information about a child."
	In paragraph 115, the Committee states:
	"We remind the Government that Article 8 requires that there be adequate procedural safeguards regulating the disclosure of sensitive personal information, and these may require participation by the person who is the subject of the information in decisions concerning the inclusion and disclosure of certain types of information".
	My subsection dealing with the right to object meets the Committee's need for a safeguard, by removing the Secretary of State's ability to overrule the right to object. At present, it is a judicial process that determines whether there has been substantial distress and whether that processing should cease because it is unwarranted. In contested cases, it is the courts that determine the balance between the interests of those who run the information databases and those of the individual concerned. However, in this Bill the Minister is taking untrammelled powers to determine that her view will prevail. There is no balance there, and the proper judicial process should be reinstated.
	New clause 16(5) requires any processing purpose of personal data under the Bill to be defined by regulations made under it. It basically negates an organisation processing personal data for a secondary purpose, even where that secondary purpose is authorised by other legislation. If the data are wanted for the secondary purpose, the Secretary of State's regulations should clearly say so. This is a major improvement. It limits processing purposes only to those identified under the Bill.
	Subsection (6) amends the definition of personal data. That is necessary because the European Commission has sent the Government a 20-page infringement letter stating that the Data Protection Act 1998 is deficient and does not implement the data protection directive, 95/46/EC. Has the Minister seen that 20-page infringement letter? If so, has she taken it into account? If not, I cannot see how she can stand at the Dispatch Box talking about the protection of personal data when our UK Act is, according to the Commission, deficient in affording protection. As I said, powers are being enacted to override its already weak provisions anyway. My wide definition of personal data helps to resolve the matter and I ask hon. Members to support new clause 16 in that light.

Annette Brooke: Many of the comments that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made underline our feeling that we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. Many questions remain unanswered. Despite last week's publication of the consultation document, I still believe that we have more questions than answers. We are not trying to be obstructive but it is difficult to vote on such an important issue without more details.
	There is a problem of being out of synch when we hear on Report that some matters will not be concluded until January. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) but I want to place it firmly on record that I do not agree with his general stance. We need local databases with objective data and I cannot believe that they should be restricted to those identified as vulnerable. I therefore distance Liberal Democrat Members from that viewpoint. If we are genuinely to move towards a preventive agenda, we must have basic, simple information on everybody.
	I repeat the anxieties that I raised in Committee. Once one moves away from objective data into the subjective realm, my concerns increase. Let us consider the term, "cause for concern". I have just used the word "concern"; everyone else uses it. There is no definition and I am not sure that I want anyone to start defining it. If we ask different professionals from different backgrounds to flag up a cause for concern on a database that will become available for other people to see, we must worry about the use to which it might be put.
	The consultation document suggested that the intention was for a flag to be attached if one professional wanted to talk to another. I do not want to belittle that because I should like the Minister to respond to the point. I do not understand how the proposal will make it any more likely that people will communicate with each other. For example, one either looks at one's e-mails or one does not. Someone either opens the database and knows which children they need to look up to find the flag or they do not. I do not understand how it will work. It sounds simple: an indication that someone wants to talk to someone else. However, I cannot understand how it will work when there are so many children and when other systems of communication are far more direct. We all say that our professionals need to communicate directly with one another if we are genuinely to protect our children and intervene at the earliest possible stage.
	I found the consultation document easier to follow on sensitive services. The Minister had picked up the points that many organisations raised but it is important to note that the NSPCC remained concerned about the Bill. It might be fairly content about subjects for consultation but the measure permits the disclosure that someone has accessed sensitive services. I fear that that will put off young people and parents from using the services. I am not assured about that matter.
	I have tried to make it clear that I agree with some provisions and take a different approach from Conservative Front-Bench Members to others. Overall, we have more questions than answers and we must vote to express that opinion. It must be rare to have so many unanswered questions about a major Bill at this stage in the proceedings. I hope that I am making clear our support for the some provisions but despite that, we must vote to express our anxiety, which centres especially around the subjective nature of any data on the database.
	Although we support the local databases, I should have liked some suggestion of the options for passing on data when the child moves. I do not perceive the necessity for a national database per se, but mechanisms must exist. There must be different methods and we need to be able to assess them and have an opinion. The proposal will not work if it is viewed as a massive intrusion into one's life by a national database that has masses of information about everybody. However, some of the most vulnerable children are those who are moved around for various reasons and I would be distraught if I believed that we had a system that allowed the children who need protecting the most to fall through the gap.
	I am sorry that we do not have a range of options. I do not have a full grasp of how the system could work. I simply have an image of the principles that I want the Bill to retain. We cannot be confident that those principles are retained because of the lack of detail in the measure.

John Gummer: It is obviously necessary to take every measure that we can to protect vulnerable children. Our ability to collect data more effectively and efficiently than in the past does not necessarily mean that it would be sensible to act on it. We should therefore consider the proposals carefully. I support my hon. Friends in their quest for a great deal more information from the Minister.
	The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) made a powerful case. His description of the way in which the Bill runs counter to the proper protection of the individual was impressive. The trouble is that the Minister does not have a good reputation for willingness to listen or for use of data. I am therefore not prepared to leave in her hands the decision about the information that goes on to the lists, especially when the provisions are remarkably imprecise. In many years in the House of Commons, I have never known an occasion on which the relevant professional bodies have criticised a Government Bill in such detail for lack of precision. I cannot recall circumstances in which a Minister's hon. Friend made such a devastating attack about data protection.
	I was interested that the Brook Advisory Centre, an organisation of which I largely disapprove, singled out a fascinating matter. Information that cannot be given to parents could be given to the state under the Bill. That is a new system. The centres will be asked to put on a database information that they have spent all their time—in my view, wrongly—trying to remove from parents. That is amazing.

Margaret Hodge: indicated dissent.

John Gummer: If the Minister claims that that is not correct, why does the Brook Advisory Centre, which is close to her, appear to believe that it may be asked to do things of which it disapproves and that, in its view, would undermine its activities?
	Apart from that, I want to discuss the phrase "cause for concern". I am amazed by the causes for concern that people manage to produce. If the phrase is not defined more effectively, I fear that many people in all sorts of areas will have causes for concern that involve their own views and attitudes rather than children. The Minister must free us from our cause for concern, which is lack of precision in the keeping of data about young people, who have the right to be protected in the same way as adults—we live in a world in which far too many people think it satisfactory to keep information about adults.
	Lastly, I want to underline something that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said on holding data about those who are vulnerable. The idea that every child should be recorded in that way is immensely illiberal. Indeed, I was very surprised to hear the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), once again underline the illiberality of the new Liberal party.
	It is not acceptable to keep data on people for no reason and I cannot see why children should be put on a database unless there is a reason for it. I am perfectly prepared to protect people, even for the smallest of reasons, but the idea that data must be kept on every child in order to protect the vulnerable is the reverse of the truth, because the more data kept, the more likely it is that the data that one needs will be obscured.
	The Minister has not proved her case either here or in Committee, and the House of Commons needs a better explanation than the one that she has given. The professional bodies are all as confused as the House.

Margaret Hodge: indicated dissent.

John Gummer: It is no good the Minister shaking her head, because the professional bodies have said that they are confused. The Minister may think that those bodies are all stupid, which is an attitude that she often takes towards people outside this House, but the fact of the matter is that they are confused. Unless she can remove the confusion of this House and the professional organisations, she will go down as a Minister who wants the power to do things as she thinks fit, and this House does not have confidence in her to do things as she thinks fit, because we have had too much experience of her.

Margaret Hodge: I regret that final contribution. When the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) comes to the House to discuss a serious matter such as this, he should read himself into it so that he can make a more informed contribution. He would do better to return to the Herbert Laming inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié and the many other inquiries into the deaths of children.
	Time and time again, such inquiries find that the same features went wrong. One thing that every inquiry into an unnecessary child death finds is that people failed to share information effectively. Our attempt to establish a system—a tool—that professionals can use better to protect and safeguard children and better to promote children's well-being should command respect and support from both sides of the House and should not be pushed around like a political football, as in the case of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Hilton Dawson: Is it not also the case that many deaths of children at the hands of parents and care givers come out of the blue as far as public agencies are concerned? Causes for concern would not be detected under the sort of system lamely proposed by Conservative Members.

Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely. I am conscious that hon. Members want to discuss other issues and hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) will accept that we had a full debate on that issue in Committee. I shall simply say this: the information databases that we propose are no more than tools to support professionals in working together better. If professionals work together better, they may be able to prevent some other child's death. The databases are tools to shift the emphasis in how we work from simply intervening to protect children when things go wrong to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, trying to intervene earlier to prevent children from going wrong. They are no substitute for the many systems that we have in place.
	I want briefly to deal with some of the new issues that were raised in the debate. The first concerns the integrated children's system, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. That is not the same as the information database, nor is it a national register—it is a framework for social services, working with children in need and their families. It will be supported by the computerisation of social services records that are currently kept on paper.
	As the hon. Gentleman well knows from the debate in Committee, those records would not appear on the databases where we are keeping the simple, basic information that can identify children and those who work with them. The integrated children's system will not contain information about all children, only the records generated by those working with children in need and it will not be accessed by all practitioners, only those working with the children who are specified. The hon. Gentleman's point was a red herring.
	In new clause 4, the hon. Gentleman raises an issue that we did not have time to debate in Committee. I remind him, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), that the databases will comply with the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. That means that parents and children can exercise existing rights to see what information is held about them through a simple request to the database operator. They will be able to ask for inaccuracies to be corrected, and that must then happen.
	Moreover, there are measures in criminal law that impose penalties for the misuse of data in computer records and under the DPA. It would be a breach of the fourth data protection principle, which deals with accuracy, knowingly to supply untrue data or to fail to delete inaccurate data. That can lead to enforcement procedures by the Information Commissioner; and failure to comply with an enforcement notice issued by the commissioner is a serious offence.
	I do not want to return to the argument about a national database because the Committee in general—apart from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—supported the need for it. He knows, however, that our thinking is along the same lines as his: that we should have local databases, some on a regional level, whether it be London or Greater Manchester. They need to be inoperable—

Tim Loughton: Interoperable.

Margaret Hodge: I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman is right to correct me on that.
	The Bill needs to provide for what we call the 151st system, which would ensure that all professionals know where to locate a child and that, if that child leaves one local authority area and moves to another, there is a system that holds a record of them until they re-emerge in another area.
	I come to a concern that was expressed by several Members. The Bill contains a provision to enable a practitioner to inform another practitioner who subsequently accesses a child's record that they have a current concern about the child. That means that the second practitioner can see who else they should contact as a priority to determine whether their observations are related, so that together they can build a better all-round picture of the child's needs. That represents an added dimension to the information that the databases provide by simply holding the contact details of all the practitioners involved with a child. It will prompt contact and facilitate appropriate discussion to address the problem at an earlier stage. It is not a substitute for action—I said that in Committee and reiterate it today.
	One would hope that in most cases placing a cause for concern on a database, as we suggested in the consultation document, would mean that the consent of the child and the family had been sought, and that only in the most exceptional circumstances where the child is at risk of harm and abuse would that happen without such consent.
	I shall deal briefly with the important contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead. I provided him with a written answer before the summer recess, in which I said that the databases would comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. I should also like to reassure him and all other hon. Members today. We are establishing a complex system and we need to work our way through a lot of difficult issues. Because we know that Members are concerned about these issues, we have said that we shall come back to both Houses of Parliament to seek affirmative resolutions as we go forward with the regulations and guidance. There is no hidden agenda here. There is no way in which any future Minister could misuse or abuse the powers in this part of the Bill. What we wish to do is move forward to try to establish better systems for sharing information. I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied by those added assurances.
	Hon. Members have said that many children's organisations have concerns on this issue. Yes, but even during the first consultation on the first set of regulations, I have already had letters from organisations such as Barnardo's, the National Children's Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Children's Society, all welcoming the consultation in which we are engaged and recognising that it is starting to deal with some of the concerns that they had expressed earlier. Yes, it is only a consultation document, but we will come back to both Houses and use the affirmative resolution procedure to ensure that we have the support of everyone as we move towards regulations. Not to take advantage of this opportunity to provide a tool for professionals to share information, so that they can prevent the unnecessary deaths that we have witnessed, such as that of little Victoria Climbié, would be to miss the opportunity of a lifetime. I am not prepared to do that, and I hope that all hon. Members will share my wish to move forward with this part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Presumption of equal parenting

'(1)   The Children Act 1989 (c.41) is amended as follows.
	(2)   After section 1(1) (paramount consideration is welfare of the child) insert—
	"(1A)   In respect of subsection (1)(a) above the court shall, unless a contrary reason be shown, act on the presumption that a child's welfare is best served through residence with its parents and, if its parents are not living together, through residence with one of them and through both of them being as fully and equally involved in his parenting as possible.".'.— [Mr. Grieve.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The purpose of the new clause is to amend the Children Act 1989 to provide a subsidiary measure to that in section 1 of the Act dealing with the child's welfare being of paramount consideration, so as to make it absolutely clear that the intention—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The conversations that are breaking out throughout the House are making it difficult to hear the hon. Member who is addressing us.

Dominic Grieve: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The intention behind the new clause is to make it clear that, subject to the welfare of the child being the paramount consideration, it should also be the case that a presumption exists that a child should live with their parents and that, in the event of the breakdown of a family relationship, both parents should have as equal and full a possibility to provide input into their child's life. The proposal was the subject of what I regret to say was a rather ill-tempered debate in Committee. I am slightly surprised that that should be the case because I would have expected the Minister for Children, Young People and Families to support the sentiments underlying the new clause.
	The position is extraordinary. Part I of the Children Act states that, when a court makes a determination,
	"the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration",
	a matter on which I have absolutely no dispute. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act restate our common law principles, slightly amended, that it is the parents who have parental responsibility for their children. I am sure that the Minister would not disagree with that, otherwise we would have a situation akin to "1984" in which children can be arbitrarily removed from their parents at birth. Yet when we come to part II, dealing with the important issue of how a court approaches divorce, or indeed when we come to the parts of the Act that deal with care proceedings, the principles set out earlier in the Act are, surprisingly, not provided for at all. The issue—that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration—is simply left in the air.
	That is why we have proposed the new clause. I make it clear to the Minister, for the avoidance of doubt, that it does not seek in any way to undermine the principle that the court should have paramount regard to a child's welfare, but it does seek to provide a framework within which the child's welfare interests are defined.

David Heath: It is a great shame that we do not have sufficient time to explore the issue properly but in stating clearly that the child's welfare is paramount—the hon. Gentleman has done so without equivocation, for which I am grateful—and in putting forward a proposal that one doubts will take us further than case law in terms of its effect, rather than its intention, does he agree that the most fruitful area for looking at more effective arrangements might have been the early interventions programme, which the Government have failed to implement as part of their family resolutions and which would have provided a pre-court arrangement?

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman and I share his regret at the fact that the Government have not implemented the early interventions programme. We need such a programme; indeed, it is essential. However, I also believe that until we alter the principles in the statute, we cannot start driving home the message that people must co-operate to ensure that on the break-up of a marriage, both parents have the real possibility of a full and fruitful relationship with their children, so that they can have an input into their lives.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that however welcome his comments are, the reality is that, regardless of the law's intention, the courts are biased in favour of the mother?

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate that that may have been a problem, but there has been considerable movement on that front. What is undoubtedly true is that the resident parent currently has a stranglehold over the ability to enable contact with the non-resident parent to work, be it the mother or the father. In many cases that might not be a problem, and the parties involved might be able to co-operate. But for the 10 per cent. of cases in which the parties involved are not willing to co-operate, there is no framework, despite the judiciary's best endeavours, through which to put relentless pressure on the resident parent to co-operate properly with court orders. So although one might get a contact order, it becomes meaningless, or contact is reduced to such a tiny level that is soon fizzles out, as inevitably it must. We have to address that.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: I am sorry but I cannot; I want to give the Minister time to respond.
	New clause 5 goes some way towards redressing the balance, and establishes a framework that in no way undermines the other parts of the 1989 Act. Indeed, on considering how to amend that Act, I initially contemplated tackling part II, but I concluded that it did not require reform; rather, what needed amending were the general principles. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause in that spirit, and I look forward to hearing a positive response from her.

Margaret Hodge: I have only three minutes to deal with new clause 5, but I should point out that I am absolutely delighted that we have flushed out the position that the Opposition are attempting to take. This is an extremely difficult, high profile, contentious and controversial issue, and the Opposition have tried to jump on a bandwagon. At best, they are being disingenuous; at worst, they are being opportunistic. In my view, they have tried to exploit many fathers' quite proper frustration and misery at not seeing their children by raising false hopes—that is particularly true of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—and have led people to believe that they would legislate for equal parenting and 50:50 residence. We have exposed that opportunism—

Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Hodge: No, I will not. This is another of the ill-thought out, hastily constructed and opportunistic policies that are designed to gain support from any quarter on any issue, in order to save a dying party. What an appalling way to exploit genuine human distress and misery.
	We recognise that although the current system has the paramountcy of the interests of the child at its heart, it is not working as well as it should. That is why we have published a Green Paper, and why we are pursuing the "family resolutions" pilots that are up and running in three places. We know, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) himself knows, that under existing case law, in 99.2 per cent. of cases that go to court, contact between children and both their parents is maintained. We agree with the Opposition that the child's best interests are served by both parents maintaining responsibility for that child where it is safe for them to do so. We want to speed up the system and to introduce more mediation and conciliation. We also want to give the courts a wider array of appropriate enforcement measures to ensure that parents comply with court orders. What we will not do is to be populist in the short term against the interests of children in these very difficult situations, and we will not exploit emotions—
	It being quarter past Four o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day],

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to use the wholly unreasonable guillotine on this debate to launch a personal attack on another hon. Member, confident in the knowledge that that hon. Member cannot respond? The guillotine means that serious issues affecting children, parents and grandparents in this country have not been addressed. Surely it is the Minister's job to deal with the issues under debate, rather than to launch a tirade of invective against the Opposition. The serious issues involved in this Bill have not been considered, and the Minister has not put the interests of children first.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The timing of the debate is not the responsibility of the Chair and was decided by the House earlier. Had the Minister been out of order in any of the things that she said, I would not have allowed her to say them.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Reasonable punishment

'(1)   Battery of a child cannot be justified in any proceedings on the grounds that it constituted reasonable punishment.
	(2)   Battery of a child is not unlawful if the act amounts to the use of reasonable force in order to—
	(a)   avert an immediate danger to the child or any other person;
	(b)   avert an immediate danger to property; or
	(c)   prevent the commission of a crime, or an act which would be a crime if the child had reached the age of criminal responsibility.
	(3)   For the purpose of subsections (1) and (2), "child" means a person under the age of 18.
	(4)   Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12) (cruelty to persons under sixteen) is amended as follows.
	(5)   At the end of subsection (7) insert "subject to subsection (8)".
	(6)   After subsection (7) insert—
	"(8)   Corporal punishment administered to a child cannot be justified in any proceedings on the grounds that it was administered in pursuance of a right exercisable by virtue of subsection (7).
	(9)   For the purpose of subsection (8), administering corporal punishment to a child means doing anything for the purpose of punishing that child which would constitute unlawful battery.".'.—[Mr. Hinchliffe.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

David Hinchliffe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 37, line 18, leave out clause 56.
	No. 39, in page 37, line 33, at end insert—
	'(6)   Two years after the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the effect of the provisions of subsections (1) to (5) on the number of convictions for the offences specified in subsection (2).
	(7)   As soon as practicable after the completion of the review under subsection (6) the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the outcome of the review.'.

David Hinchliffe: I want to begin by repeating the warm welcome that I gave on Second Reading for the broad thrust of the Bill. In general, it is a very positive measure. With some minor amendments, it could represent a genuinely historic step forward in children's welfare.
	New clause 12 deals with the physical chastisement of children. I accept that this is a highly contentious matter for some, and that it generates strong feelings among a significant number of people. I also accept that it is not any easy matter for any Government to address, as some people will accuse them of establishing a so-called nanny state and of interfering in the private domain of the family. I am therefore very grateful to the ministerial team responsible for the Bill for their willingness to listen, over a long period of time, to the concerns and arguments of those of us who believe that children should have equal protection in law from assault.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Minister for Children and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for the time that they have devoted to this issue. I am also grateful to those who are—shall we say—at even higher levels of the Government for a dialogue that has ensured that serious thought has been given to how we can make progress in respect of protecting children.
	I shall not dwell on the outcome of our dialogue, save to say that it is unfortunate that Labour members have been whipped to vote against a new clause that has the overwhelming support of every child protection agency in the country. For some, this is an abstract academic issue, but for many hon. Members, and myself, it is about the basic human rights of a significant proportion of our population. Our arguments are based not on policy briefings from worthy organisations but on the experience that some of us have gained from working in child protection with vulnerable and abused youngsters. Our strength of feeling comes from the certain knowledge that our laws and society could do a great deal more to ensure their well-being.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend told the House that a range of child protection agencies supported his amendment. Is he aware that Lord Laming, the author of the Victoria Climbié report that led to the introduction of the Bill, does not support his amendment and, indeed, supports the Government's position?

David Hinchliffe: Lord Laming appeared before the Health Committee, and we discussed the matter. I do not know why he does not support the amendment, bearing in mind the fact that the escalation of injuries to this girl stemmed from what might be termed "gentle smacking". His personal perspective differs significantly from that of his predecessor, Sir William Utting, who was a strong supporter of the arguments that I shall make.
	I am the first to agree that the vast majority of children, even most of those whose parents use physical chastisement, are probably better treated now than at any other time in history. For a minority whom the current law does not protect properly, however, the reality is very different. It is a scandal and a disgrace that in 21st century Britain, at least one child every week—more than 80 children every year—dies at the hands of their parents or carers. Compared with many similar countries, our record on child deaths is appalling.
	Like my colleagues who have worked in child protection, I do not just think that there is a connection between our shocking levels of child deaths and laws permitting so-called reasonable chastisement; I know that there is. I have witnessed in individual cases the progression from what is now called "gentle smacking" to serious injury and, in a couple of instances, death from shaking, hitting, punching and beating. I have direct experience of the inability of a child protection agency to stop a child suffering serious beating because of a court's acceptance of the reasonable chastisement defence.

Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that those serious injuries and deaths are already illegal, and that the problem is the behaviour of parents who commit illegal acts, not the behaviour of the vast majority of parents who are trying to keep their children within reasonable bounds of discipline?

David Hinchliffe: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to expand my argument, I will address that point.
	New clause 12 seeks to right a long-standing wrong for children. It has the modest aim of giving children equal protection from assault, but has substantial potential to reduce all forms of violence. Equal protection means what it says; hitting a child will be unlawful to exactly the same extent as hitting an adult. Some adults and, sadly, even some Government Ministers are fond of using the term "smacking" to make them feel more comfortable with what they are condoning or defending. Children, however, tell it as it is; smacking is hitting, and smacking hurts. It does not just cause physical pain, but hurts inside too.
	The new clause would criminalise hitting to exactly the same extent as hitting adults. That is equality, and children, who are far more fragile and vulnerable than us, deserve nothing less. Some members of the Government have said that they do not want parents to be criminalised for hitting their children. If they mean that they will not apply the criminal law on assault equally to assault by parents on children, we are on opposite sides of the fence. If they mean that they do not want parents to be drawn into the criminal justice system, charged and prosecuted for minor assaults on children, we are on the same side. No one in their right mind would think it constructive, apart from in very exceptional circumstances, to pursue parents into court for trivial assaults. Prosecution of parents is seldom in the interests of their dependent children, but that cannot be used as an excuse for leaving the law unclear, and sending the message that hitting children, unlike hitting adults, is acceptable.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will know that since the law was changed in Germany in 2000, not one parent has been criminalised. Does he agree that the issue at the heart of the Bill is summed up in the film of Roald Dahl's "Matilda", in which Danny DeVito says to his daughter, "I'm big and you're small. I'm right and you're wrong"? It is not only about quality, but about defending the most vulnerable in society. It is plainly wrong that a 13-stone, 40-year-old man can hit a four-stone seven-year-old child. We just have to change the law.

David Hinchliffe: I did not see the film, but I agree with its message. The only way to clarify the law and send a clear message that hitting children is at least as wrong and unlawful as hitting anyone else is to give children equal protection by removing the existing defence of reasonable chastisement altogether.

Peter Bradley: Through an honest sleight of hand, my hon. Friend has elided smacking and hitting. Most responsible parents are well able to distinguish between smacking that does not cause lasting harm and hitting, which certainly would. When he listed the ways in which those 80 children met their tragic deaths, he identified shaking and other forms of assault, but did not refer to smacking. It is clear to most reasonable people that assault is a different kettle of fish from disciplining a child in a loving family environment.

David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend gets us into the heart of the debate. I have been in court when the same point has been raised in individual cases. Is a smack in the mouth a hit? What is the difference between a smack and a hit? What is a gentle smack and what is a more serious, heavier smack? There are different smacks from different people. I weigh 16 stone. If I smacked my hon. Friend, it would be different from someone who was 10 stone smacking him. We need to consider how difficult it is for the courts to come to terms with the doubts that he raises.
	To pursue the point further, I have argued that we need to get rid of the reasonable chastisement defence. Those who cannot accept what I believe to be a common-sense approach have been scaremongering that it is unworkable or that the child protection police and prosecution services will pursue prosecutions for so-called gentle smacks.
	The evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been grossly misrepresented. In his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, he said, reasonably enough, that he could not guarantee that parents would never be prosecuted for minor assaults on their children. He stated:
	"The reality is that we would have to have some sort of policy about this but I think it would be inconceivable for us to draft a policy that would be so wide as to say that minor assaults on children would never be prosecuted because there clearly could be circumstances where they would be. One might posit an example of a child who was mentally handicapped or a child who was subjected to sexual abuse or other forms of assault. So we would not and could not draft guidance which would absolve all minor acts of battery against children from criminal prosecution. That said, the reality is that, just as most minor assaults against adults are not prosecuted, I suspect most minor assaults against children would not be either, although it is not an entirely accurate analogy because children are much more vulnerable than adults."

Elfyn Llwyd: How does the hon. Gentleman square the DPP's view with the Crown Prosecution Service allegedly telling the Government that the new clause would criminalise a huge number of people?

David Hinchliffe: The view of the CPS appears to be contradicted by what the DPP told the Joint Committee and also what the Association of Chief Police Officers said to me last week.
	The DPP did not say that equal protection was unworkable. He said that Parliament should decide. Two tests have to be satisfied before any prosecution goes ahead: the evidential test and the public interest test. The public interest test invariably includes consideration of the best interests of the affected child. It is hard to understand how charging and prosecuting a parent for a minor assault that causes no injury is going to pass the tests and go ahead except in extreme circumstances. That does not render the law meaningless. On the contrary, it shows it to be sensitive.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend's arguments are very persuasive; we pursued many of them in both my Select Committee and his. However, the proposals would bring a big change in our law. Does not he think that trying the new system for two years, monitoring it and then making a judgment would give us a means of transition for people we represent who are unpersuaded? Would not that be a more positive way forward?

David Hinchliffe: If by "the new system" my hon. Friend means the one included in the Bill by the House of Lords, I shall be going through exactly what all the agencies concerned with child protection are saying about clause 56.

David Chaytor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Hinchliffe: No, I am sorry, but I have to make some progress. Other Members want to speak in this brief debate.
	All the associations representing those who will need to work on equal protection are agreed that it is workable and safe; all of them. I have met and talked with representatives of the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Chief Police Officers, social workers, the NSPCC, health visitors and paediatricians. They all believe emphatically—to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—that clause 56 is unworkable and unsafe.
	The position of the police is especially worthy of note. The House will recall that in the Lords debate on equal protection Lord Condon—who, as Paul Condon, was a distinguished Metropolitan Police Commissioner—said that he was absolutely certain that the status quo should not prevail and that parliamentarians
	"have an historic opportunity to establish a pragmatic, symbolic and new legal approach to protecting children".
	He said that peers
	"should not be deterred by a fear of unleashing hundreds of thousands of police inquiries into trivial allegations and pitting child against parent in frivolous circumstances".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 549.]
	Only last week, I met Chief Constable Terence Grange, who speaks for ACPO on child protection matters. Subsequently, he wrote to me, setting out the association's views on the serious problems that would arise for the police should clause 56 become law. I have a copy of his letter if anybody wants to look at it. He stated:
	"The proposed Clause would introduce randomness in terms of the child's physiology and the background of the parent, working class families tend to have much rougher hands than lawyers, bankers, etc. Some children redden or bruise much more easily than others. Such randomness and the use of age to differentiate between common assault and actual bodily harm is, in my view, likely to lead to much more complexity."
	In addressing specifically the removal of the reasonable chastisement defence, Chief Constable Grange stated that
	"since 2002, the police service in England and Wales has adopted an approach of recording crime whereby if a child or a witness or a member of the public had called to allege that a parent had smacked a child, that matter would be recorded as a crime. That does not mean that prosecution would follow, there is a well established procedure under 'Working Together' that enables the police and social services to decide on the best course of action and that would be followed. Therefore, if Parliament removes the defence I would anticipate no lasting issues which would make the situation unmanageable for the Police. The matter would be recorded as a crime and investigated by police or social services, dependent on the evidence, injury and a view on what is best for the family, as happens now . . . There may be an increase in allegations, however, given the increase in police resources over the last four years I am confident that we could cope with that. It is my view that were the change to be made over a reasonable period of time the number of allegations would fall, as given a good education programme by Government, rather like drink driving, smacking a child would become socially unacceptable".
	Chief Constable Grange concludes his letter on behalf of ACPO by saying that
	"removing the defence of reasonable chastisement would not create an unmanageable situation for the police force. The proposed clause 56 would introduce far more complexity than it would solve, as one example, the police would be seeking statements from Doctors and Paediatricians at such a level that I think they would find that unmanageable. We take no view on whether or not the defence should be removed. If Parliament removes the defence the police service in England and Wales will be able to manage the consequences".
	As Chief Constable Grange indicates, the police must work closely with members of the medical profession on such matters. It is important to note that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which represents paediatricians involved in child protection, is a signatory to a multi-agency statement that claims that clause 56 is unsafe and unworkable and that supports equal protection. Other signatories to the statement include the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, the NSPCC, the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services.
	Mr. Steve Love of the children and families committee of the ADSS wrote to me on behalf of the association to state its clear views. He said:
	"We would welcome the greater clarity that will result that children be given the same protection as adults. I believe this would assist frontline practitioners in reinforcing the message that physical punishment is not an appropriate method of providing care and control for children."
	He continued:
	"I think the proposed introduction of Cl. 56 would create an additional complication to what are already complex matters. The current threshold of 'significant harm' for formal child protection investigations would now have another standard if Cl. 56 was introduced. It's difficult to see how the standard could be applied consistently, as what may bruise one child may not bruise another. Social Services Departments are working hard to ensure a careful, measured and consistent approach for those involved in protecting children. I do not believe the introduction of Cl. 56 will do anything to assist".
	In the light of such clear statements from all those in the front line of child protection, the scaremongering about the reform is frankly unacceptable. If there are still people in 2004 who want to defend hitting children, they should do so honestly, rather than hiding behind the misrepresented effects of reform that have been peddled over the past few weeks.

Julie Kirkbride: Part of the hon. Gentleman's argument is the idea that children should be equally protected from being hit or smacked, whichever word one chooses to use. However, there is a difference between a child and a parent. A parent has a duty of care to a child and carries that out by putting it to bed, giving it food, looking after it and giving it moral guidance and help with discipline so that it may become a proper civilised adult. Smacking might be appropriate in that context. Why does he want to influence the relationship between a responsible parent and a child who may well need proper guidance?

David Hinchliffe: We could argue on that basis that perhaps people with learning difficulties lack a sense of reason. Should we thus suggest smacking them, because that is exactly the same argument?

Kerry Pollard: May I offer my hon. Friend some support? As a father of seven children, I believe that I have more parenting skills than most in the House, and I say, "Don't smack children."

David Hinchliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
	I want to conclude in a moment so that other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak. People who oppose new clause 12 because of the risk that a parent might, in exceptional circumstances, be prosecuted for what is perceived as a minor assault should not fool themselves that they have the backing of those charged with a responsibility for child protection; clearly, they do not. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has heard evidence on the matter from the Director of Public Prosecutions and others. In its 19th report in September, it emphasised the fact that equal protection would provide more legal certainty than clause 56. No one has challenged the law of assault against adults as not providing legal certainty. No one would suggest that we should decriminalise the minor slapping of women, confused elderly people or those with learning difficulties, who, like young children, might have limited powers of reasoning. I am merely proposing to extend the existing law to cover children equally. We have already extended equal protection to children in schools, nurseries and so on. This is the last logical step in establishing equality.
	Colleagues who have looked at debates on the Bill in the House of Lords will have seen that some particularly absurd examples were cited. One Member asked whether we really wanted to criminalise the exasperated parent who smacks her child to stop him running into the road for the fourth time. Well, do we really want to decriminalise the exasperated but loving daughter who smacks her confused father who is suffering from dementia and who is also straying into the road for the fourth time? Again, we must not confuse the law, which must be clear and take sensible common-sense approaches to prosecution. All assault and battery should be unlawful. In either of the examples, can anyone seriously envisage the perpetrators being dragged off to court?
	If there are not to be wholesale prosecutions, some will ask what is the point of changing the law if we are not going to enforce it. Let us be clear that removal of the defence will make prosecution easier in cases where it is necessary to protect children from significant harm and doing so is in the child's best interests. At the moment, the law inhibits the child protection system at every stage. Most importantly, it inhibits those working with families in intervening early with clear and supportive messages, rather than waiting for significant injury.
	The concept of prosecution and punishment is just one purpose of the law. Prosecution in this area is a demonstration of the law and the system failing to protect the child. The higher purpose of the law and its particular purpose when dealing with the private sphere of the family is to set a standard, send a clear signal, educate, change the culture, change individual attitudes and satisfy human rights.
	Through its policies on the physical punishment of children, Britain is in breach of its obligations under both the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—signed up to by a Conservative Government some years ago—and the United Nations convention on human rights. Twelve countries have already introduced equal protection. If they can do it, so can we. The new clause has the support outside Parliament of the largest and broadest alliance ever assembled to pursue an issue on behalf of children. We should listen to its argument, and in particular to the unanimous voice of our child protection agencies, and vote to ensure that the welfare of our children is properly safeguarded in law.

Annette Brooke: We have just heard a comprehensive run-through of most of the main arguments, and as time is limited and many hon. Members want to speak, I shall not repeat them. I want to reflect on the fact that the defence of reasonable chastisement has been challenged in the European Court of Human Rights and a judgment has been made. The Joint Committee on Human Rights in this place believes that something must change as a result of that judgment.
	In accepting that something must change, let us consider the amendment agreed in the House of Lords, which now forms clause 56. I regard it effectively as a sticking plaster. I am sure that legalistically it addresses the fundamental issue that we are in breach of various conventions, but as the Joint Committee on Human Rights says, it is likely that there will be further incompatibilities in future. So, if anything, clause 56 would be only a temporary fix and does not tackle the main issue. If we think about it, putting a sticking plaster on something makes one feel better and more comfortable. I worry that clause 56 makes people feel a little better because they think that they are tackling the worst of abuses and that therefore things will be all right. That concerns me greatly. For that reason, I support new clause 12, but I do not do so lightly. It has taken me quite a long time to come round to that and to have the courage to speak up on it.

John Redwood: What would happen where a parent had smacked a child in the privacy of the home, just the two of them? How would the child have protection? Is the idea that the child would know about this law, go to the police, and then the police would have to adjudicate between parent and child, one saying yes and the other no? How far will the intrusion go and could it be successful for the child?

Annette Brooke: I shall continue with my points and address that question at an appropriate point rather than diverting from my main issue at this stage.
	I was saying that I do not support the new clause lightly. I have given it a great deal of thought and I am aware that many people will disagree with this approach, but it is an opportunity to show leadership. So much of the legislation in which I have been involved has been reactive. We constantly try to do something in our criminal justice system about bad behaviour, violence and physical assault, but this is an opportunity to start at the root causes.
	What does physical punishment achieve? Research shows that it does not change behaviour but suppresses it, and suppressing behaviour almost certainly means that it comes out in another form, particularly when the person who administers or might administer the punishment is not around. That creates the potential for children to hit out at one another in the playground. After all, what have they seen in the home? What are their role models? Any form of physical punishment sets that lead.
	Until I became a Member of Parliament, I had not realised that some children, particularly in certain home settings, see types of behaviour that I could not even comprehend—I am referring to cases of sexual abuse—yet they become a norm. We are talking about norm referencing here. Any form of violence within the home has a spin-off effect outside the home and in future family relationships.

Humfrey Malins: rose—

Julie Kirkbride: rose—

Annette Brooke: I shall continue my argument, if hon. Members do not mind. I am sure that they will have plenty of opportunity to speak later.
	Physical punishment is ineffective and has other consequences. There is also the important point about equality for children and adults, which I see in terms of the respect that we have for one another as individuals, and that respect is broken down.

Humfrey Malins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: I shall continue the points that I am making.
	If we stop and think carefully, we are not making a positive contribution. It is often said, "It never did me any harm," but the research shows overwhelmingly that physical punishment certainly does no one any good. We have a positive opportunity to show real leadership and set a change in culture for the 2lst century. People will not change their behaviour overnight. It will be gradual and any move along these lines needs an enormous amount of support and parental education.
	Let us consider a familiar scenario. In a busy shopping centre one inevitably comes across a parent who is having an extremely frustrating time with a youngster. They are pushed to the limit of their endurance and perhaps hit their child round the head or hit hard, and I flinch when I see that. I imagine that that applies to most people. I understand the situation because, as a parent, I have been pushed to the limit of endurance, too. We can all acknowledge that. We are not considering criminalising normal behaviour.
	Other countries take a sensible approach. It is accepted that it takes time to moderate behaviour and that one cannot simply go from one control system to another without supporting education. However, we could be proud of our leadership if we accepted the new clause. I do not view it as an example of being a nanny state because we would set the foundations for improving behaviour in society and for some of the values that we all support. We see violence on the streets, and perhaps we have set the bad example.
	In answer to the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made, senseless criminalisation has not occurred in other countries. It is worth attending briefings by representatives of Germany and Sweden. Europe has a long history of making improvements in this respect. Deaths from abuse have more or less disappeared in Sweden, where the problem is managed so much better. I ask all hon. Members to examine their consciences and consider supporting new clause 12.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I want to speak about amendment No. 39, which I framed after discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who, as a trustee of ChildLine, has done much to help vulnerable children. I want to put on record my thanks to him for his work on behalf of vulnerable children throughout the United Kingdom.
	The law, which allows reasonable chastisement of a child, fails to protect children who are physically abused. It allows their abusers a loophole at trial and prevents other cases from coming to trial. The alterations that were made in another place present an unsatisfactory compromise, allowing children to be hit but placing a physical marker on how hard they can be hit and in what way. That is dangerous because children mark in many different ways for different lengths of time, and shaking and blows to the head often do not offer the physical proof that would have to be brought as evidence to ensure a conviction. The proposal is impractical because it will place doctors and paediatricians in a difficult position in determining what constitutes minor bruising and thus whether a child is covered by the new law. That is unsatisfactory.
	However, although my hon. Friend and I believe that the current law fails to protect a child, we acknowledge the need to bring the public with us. That is why we propose, as a practical way forward, a Government review two years after the introduction of clause 56. It should be followed by a report to the House for our consideration. I stress that, if the review shows that the child abuse statistics have not dramatically improved, legislation will need to be reconsidered. That should happen only after we have had a proper time to consider the effectiveness of the proposals.

Andrew Turner: I want clause 56 to be removed from the Bill because, like the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I believe that it worsens the position. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for a careful, measured and consistent approach to assist those who care for children and he mentioned several agencies that supported his careful, measured and consistent approach. The group that he did not mention in that connection was those who have the greatest responsibility for bringing up children: parents. I am not fortunate enough to be a parent, but I have no doubt that the best way to bring up children is with their two natural parents. Not all of us achieve that aspiration—we do not, of course, condemn those who do not achieve it—but parents have a unique relationship with their children and a unique responsibility to bring them up as citizens of tomorrow, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) suggested. We know that the overwhelming majority of parents not only do their best, but do an excellent job of bringing up children. Just as we make mistakes from time to time in our personal and political lives, so, under much greater pressure than us, do parents.

Humfrey Malins: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the defence of reasonable chastisement is abolished, it will criminalise millions of decent, loving parents who use a smack from time to time, whereas those few parents who assault their children horribly and are guilty of a criminal act will simply take no notice?

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The police and other agencies currently face the difficulty of tracking down and securing convictions against those who horribly abuse their children.

Elfyn Llwyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent "Children are Unbeatable!" alliance poll, in which 74 per cent. of parents—the figure for parents under 24 is 76 per cent.—said that they are against beating and smacking?

Andrew Turner: I am aware of that poll. It did not mention "beating"; it talked about "hitting". It was taken in 2004.

Elfyn Llwyd: This year.

Andrew Turner: Yes; the poll is up to date. The definition of "hitting" adopted in the preamble to the poll included a slap or smack, but when the actual question was asked, the poll did not use the words "slapping" or "smacking"—it used the word "hitting", in the sense of hitting not a child but family members. That is the perverted way in which the questions were asked on behalf of the "Children are Unbeatable!" alliance.
	Many other surveys have been undertaken. MORI conducted a survey for the National Family and Parenting Institute, which claimed after that survey that only one in five parents think that smacking is an effective way to teach children the difference between right and wrong. However, parents were not asked whether smacking is an effective way to teach children the difference between right and wrong, but whether it is the most effective way, and one in five parents think it the most effective method.
	A British Market Research Bureau survey in July 2004 found that 85 per cent. of respondents think that parents should have the right sometimes to smack their children. In a survey undertaken on behalf of the Department of Health in 1998, 88 per cent. of respondents agreed that it is sometimes necessary for parents to smack their children. Let us examine all the surveys, rather than just one.

Peter Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to confirm the findings that he has just set out. I conducted a survey on the issue in my constituency, where 89 per cent. of respondents said that they do not want to see smacking banned. However, 71 per cent. wanted the law clarified to distinguish between smacking and hitting—the distinction is between disciplining a child in a loving relationship and assaulting and abusing a child. My constituents want to see the law make that distinction, and I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which brings me neatly on to what is wrong with clause 56. The amendment that Lord Lester moved in the other place throws the law on smacking into confusion. It removes the reasonable chastisement defence in three cases—wounding, grievous bodily harm and cruelty. That is entirely justifiable, but it will make no difference because a court is unlikely to accept that chastisement with such effects is reasonable. Indeed, the reasonable chastisement defence has been attempted in only 11 cases since 2001, and in only five of those was a conviction not secured. Lord Lester's amendment would retain the reasonable chastisement defence for assault and for battery, but abolish it for assault causing actual bodily harm. That is the nub of the problem, because the definition of assault causing actual bodily harm includes tenderness and bruising; and, as the hon. Member for Wakefield said, some children bruise more easily than others.
	It follows that a parent who administers a quick slap in a supermarket, perhaps to foreshorten the sort of childish tantrums to which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) referred, will be guilty of a criminal offence if it causes actual bodily harm such as tenderness. That is not to say that they will be prosecuted, but they will be criminalised. The hon. Member for Wakefield agrees with me about that.

Douglas Hogg: The question also arises as to whether this will result in a misuse of police resources. Does my hon. Friend agree that if a member of the public saw a child being struck in a public place, and then reported that matter to the police, the police would have to make detailed inquiries to discover whether there was an underlying case of abuse in that particular case?

Andrew Turner: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Member for Wakefield says that the police are recording such reports now, so we can imagine how many more there would be if there were even more confusion about what the law means, which would be the result of Lord Lester's amendment.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has made the case that clause 56 is rubbish and does not hold water, so we can at least agree on that. He now wants to rely on the ancient common law defence of reasonable chastisement. Is he aware that that defence once applied to wives and servants as well? In what sense does he think that we should, in the 21st century, extend a protection that allows children to be, in his own words, bruised or harmed?

Andrew Turner: I should have thought that there is an obvious difference between a child who is not yet, or is in the process of becoming, a moral being and a wife or a servant, who, one would hope, already is. The loving relationship that parents have with their child is part of what informs the way in which they bring them up. It may be argued—indeed, it was put to me by members of the Isle of Wight youth council, who lobbied me vigorously and eloquently last Wednesday—that no one will be charged with this offence. There are prosecuting guidelines, and the police and social services have discretion. The problem with the guidelines, however, is that the authority has discretion whether to apply the law, and different authorities, even those operating on the same guidelines, can reach different and perfectly reasonable conclusions about how to apply the law.

Andrew Robathan: Does my hon. Friend agree that even if no one is charged, the police or some social worker—[Hon. Members: "Some social worker?"] I am glad that Labour Members find it so amusing, but aiming to criminalise millions of people is a serious matter. The police or a social worker, who know neither the parents nor the child, will come to interview them and drive a wedge between them.

Andrew Turner: I would be surprised if they did not; and better authorities than I have said that such interviews cause trauma within families.
	The Attorney-General has stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions intends to revise his guidelines to make it more likely that people will be prosecuted for actual bodily harm than for assault, although that means that they will not have the defence of reasonable chastisement. He said:
	"The effect of that pending change is that even minor assaults by a parent on a child, where—
	among other things—"minor bruising" or
	"swelling . . . are caused, will normally be charged as assault occasioning actual bodily harm."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 563.]
	As if that were not bad enough, the guidelines apply only to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, not to other prosecuting authorities or private individuals. That will lead to greater confusion among parents about how they are permitted to discipline their children. The CPS and the police might say one thing, but a private prosecution, perhaps backed by a militant anti-smacking lobby, might say something different.
	I echo the view of the hon. Member for Wakefield that clause 56 is a muddle and makes the law more, rather than less, complicated. The division of opinion in the House is very clear: it is between abolishing smacking altogether and retaining the current reasonable chastisement defence.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I speak in support of amendment No. 39, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and other hon. Members.
	My journey on this issue reflects that of any other parent, I suspect, and of many members of the public. I have no great expertise in the matter, as some hon. Members do. The only expertise that I bring to the debate comes from my becoming the father of three children within three years—I have expertise in running myself ragged trying to keep up with their high levels of energy.
	My journey on this issue has changed substantially. At one stage, I was completely opposed to the idea of any further controls or of a ban on smacking. Now, I feel that the mood of public opinion is moving firmly in the direction not only of greater controls but, eventually, a total ban. I also feel that that is probably the right thing to do. However, I have a degree of uncertainty about this because, as a parent, I am not yet wholly convinced, although I am nearly there.
	Clause 56 is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, but I recognise that it is a step in the right direction. It lacks simplicity and it is open to legal interpretation. It also lacks elegance, but so does much of our current law. If a ban is the right way forward— I am inclined to that way of thinking, but it is a big "if" in the public's mind at the moment—but the Government do not feel ready to introduce a ban today, let them at least commit themselves to a full, fundamental review two years after the commencement of the Bill, which has so many good things in it. Let them bring this issue back to the House so that we can debate it in full and consider the implications.

Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend accept that all of us who propose a complete ban—now—on the physical punishment of children would very much want it to be developed in the context of parental support, parental education and parental information? There would be no question of simply imposing something without a great deal of work being done with parents.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His point is well made and he will see that I shall cover that issue later. He will be aware of the well-known saying in politics that we cannot lead unless, when we look over our shoulder, people are still following. One of the problems that the Government face is that there is not a great big crowd in favour of a ban. People are following that route in increasing numbers, but they are not all there yet. I include myself among those who are not yet there, because I still have some doubts.

Win Griffiths: On that issue, may I point out to my hon. Friend that when the Swedish Government took the decision that parents should not smack their children, most people there were against it? However, a survey was carried out a couple of years ago, after the ban had been in place for quite a few years, and only 6 per cent. of people wanted the right to smack their children. So let us take this step now, educate now, and get on with the process of improving the lives of our children.

Huw Irranca-Davies: One Labour Member has already remarked on the fact that this is an historic occasion. I agree, but it is not the only occasion. I know that my hon. Friend holds strong fundamental and principled views on this matter, which might well be right—that is what I am saying—but this should not be the only occasion on which we can revisit the issue. That is why I strongly support the amendment under which we would review the matter in full once we have seen whether clause 56 works. If it has not worked, we will have to go forward from that point.
	Such a review would not be based only on international comparators—we have those already. It is a question not of what works in Sweden or other European countries, but of what will work in this country, with our historical attitudes, our parenting culture and our legal system. I for one would urge the Government to move ahead with the Bill because it contains so many good things for children. However, they should come back to the House, not lock the door on us, and give us the opportunity to debate this issue once again. While this might be a historic moment, it is not the one and only and we deserve another opportunity to review public opinion, parental opinion and Back-Bench opinion in two years' time.

Andrew Robathan: I wish to speak to the new clause and amendment No. 23. I hope that the House will divide on amendment No. 23 when it gets the opportunity.
	I introduced a private Member's Bill four years ago, which I recall the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) opposed. I therefore re-examined my notes. I recall that in 1993, a judge had before him a mother of two appealing against a conviction for assault. She had spanked her child with a slipper having caught the child stealing. One may or may not agree with that, but she was convicted of assault—for those who say that people do not get charged and convicted, that is one case. The judge quashed the conviction, saying:
	"If a parent cannot slipper a child, the world is going potty".
	I do not know whether the judge is still alive, but I suspect that he will think that many in the House are indeed going barking mad—[Interruption.] If there are Members who would like to leave the Chamber, they should do that instead of nattering.
	A parent who harms a child should of course be charged and prosecuted. Many are not. Does anyone really believe that passing this law will mean that more parents who harm children will be prosecuted? I suspect that that will not be the case.

Hilton Dawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the proponents of a complete ban are trying to argue for a cultural change whereby the physical punishment or over-chastisement of children simply becomes unacceptable?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman will know that I like and respect him, but that does not mean that I agree with him.
	I am delighted that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and others can bring up their children without smacking them. I think that that is marvellous. I have two small children to whom I am devoted—I love them more than anything else in the world. Very occasionally, I smack them; much more often, I threaten them with it. Funnily enough, it works rather well.
	I will talk briefly about violence in society. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said that violence begets violence. Apparently, we now have 1 million violent crimes a year on our streets, children are carrying knives in schools and using them, teachers are being attacked in schools more and more often, and teachers tell me that when they try to remonstrate with children, they say, "You can't touch me." When we debated getting rid of corporal punishment in schools, we were told that it would mean less violence in schools. In fact, there is more. Members should therefore ask their constituents whether they think that the drive towards removing violence— smacking children and corporal punishment—has achieved much.

David Taylor: In the instance that the hon. Gentleman, who is my near parliamentary neighbour, has given, is it not just as likely that increased violence between young people and by young people arises from the violence of the background that they may experience in their home, rather than from a lack of chastisement in school?

Andrew Robathan: I do not think that the evidence bears that out. I would say that the rise in violence is much more related to the drivel coming out of our television and video screens, but that is another matter for another debate at a later time.   
	Who cares more? Is it parents, is it social workers, is it the police or is it legislators? As a parent, I know who cares more: I care more. I suspect that if other Members ask their constituents who are parents the same question, they will hear the same answer.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Robathan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will never have children so he will approach the matter differently. [Interruption.]

Chris Bryant: I would have said that I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
	Is not the truth of the matter that some parents—the vast majority—do care deeply about their children, but some do not? That is the problem that we must address.

Andrew Robathan: On that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right that some parents do not care. The question is whether abolishing all smacking will make them care more. I rather doubt it.
	Who knows best? Is it the police, social workers or parents? Of course there are parents who harm their children, but they are, I suggest, a very small minority, and they should be prosecuted now.

Douglas Hogg: May I say to my hon. Friend—on behalf, I think, of his own party—that his remark to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was uncalled for and deserves an apology?

Andrew Robathan: I will indeed apologise to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not like people preaching to others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, and I might even buy him a drink afterwards. Perhaps it is to do with the excitement of the occasion.
	Most loving parents are trying their best in very difficult circumstances and many do raise children with no smacking at all. I remember my brother telling me that he had no problem in this regard; perhaps it is only others who do—but how dare anyone tell loving parents, "We know best"?

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend will know from his constituency experience—as will all Members—of the belief among our constituents that public authorities and the ruling elites, who are well represented on the Labour Benches, are not on their side. Is this not the key question? If the law is changed tonight, are our constituents more or less likely to believe that the ruling elites and the public authorities are on their side?

Andrew Robathan: That is an excellent point. We are talking about introducing the police and social services into the relationship between a child and his or her parents. At the very least, an interview with a police officer will cause some friction and tension between parents and children. At worst, it will lead—as it often has—to a child being taken into care.
	There was a man called Frank Beck who ran care homes in Leicestershire. We should all know about the horror stories that emerged from those homes. Most social workers are trying their best in difficult circumstances and some are outstanding, but we know that not all of them are.

Shaun Woodward: At the heart of these proposals is the fact that every week more than one child in this country dies as a result of parental physical abuse. We are not asking whether people in this country love their children more or less than those elsewhere in the world. The fact is that in Sweden, where smacking has been banned, no child has died as a result of parental physical abuse. What we are arguing about, surely, is how to prevent unnecessary and tragic deaths.

Andrew Robathan: I am not sure that banning smacking will lead to any more convictions of parents who abuse their children in this country. I understand that in Sweden smacking was abolished in 1979. Between 1981 and 1994 there was a fivefold increase in the number of child abuse cases and child-on-child assaults, which is interesting; but, more to the point, UNICEF states that the average number of deaths per 100,000 children over the past five years in Sweden is much greater than the United Kingdom average. We should go back to the statistics.
	I want to see a society where children are well disciplined. Part of self-discipline is being taught discipline by one's parents. I hope that that does not need smacking, but sometimes it does. Those who will vote to ban smacking are showing an extraordinary arrogance in saying, "I know best. I know better than loving parents." As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said, that shows a detachment from people in this country. We do not know better than most parents. We should not pretend that we do. Most parents can look after their children much better without the interference of legislators, the police or social services.

Julie Morgan: I support new clause 12. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has gone into many of the detailed arguments for the new clause. It is important that the law sends a clear message that hitting, smacking or any form of physical punishment by an adult to a child, who is smaller, weaker and vulnerable, is not acceptable. Hitting a child is humiliating for the child and for the adult involved.
	I have looked into research that has been conducted in Wales by Save the Children about how children feel about being smacked. That research clearly shows that children do not view smacks as trivial and that the effects of a smack are deeply felt. They associate smacking with angry parents. Some of the older children said that they felt that the adults felt regret after they smacked a child. Children said that smacking usually takes place in the house and in other areas where no one can see. They felt that adults were ashamed of smacking their children.
	Peter Clarke, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, says that young people have complained to him that they do not have the respect of adults. That is one of his main findings in the reports that have been published and the discussions that he has had with children since he became the commissioner. They feel that the main reason that they do not have such respect is that adults are allowed to hit them. As Peter Clarke said in his letter to the Prime Minister yesterday, urging him to support new clause 12:
	"As long as the smallest and most vulnerable members of society have less protection from assault than adults, the Government's position is at odds with the title of the Green Paper 'Every Child Matters'."
	He goes on to say:
	"Smacking children is not only a breach of their human rights, but is linked to an outdated and ineffective approach to raising children."
	Children should be afforded the same protection under the law as adults. It is unjust for one human being to be treated differently under the law on the basis of age alone. Children in Wales, the national umbrella organisation for children and young people, does not accept that smacks are mostly loving. It seems a contradiction in terms to say, "You can have a loving smack."

David Heath: I would like to see a ban on abusive violence but am yet to be persuaded by new clause 12. Can the hon. Lady explain why subsection (2) introduces a new defence, which is available to people for smacking their children under certain circumstances? That seems to be out of kilter with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in introducing the new clause.

Julie Morgan: I have been consulting my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield because I am uncertain about the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I am afraid that I cannot answer that point.

David Hinchliffe: Subsection (2) takes account of the concern that we should not take action where, as I mentioned in my speech, a parent may be faced with a child consistently running into the road. I have done this with one of my children and I accept that I did it because I was concerned about danger. There will be exemptions. The law would not take action in such circumstances. Surely that is a common-sense approach.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for helping me out.
	Child protection agencies say that smacking is often a result of loss of control by the adult. Children in Wales has concrete evidence of injuries to very young children where parents have felt justified in their actions because the defence of reasonable chastisement exists. By not removing that defence completely, we will feed into that justification.
	I am also very concerned about clause 56, which should be removed. It allows parents to justify common assault as reasonable punishment; the message is, as the "Children are Unbeatable!" briefing tells us, "Carry on smacking."Many people have expressed concern about parents being criminalised, but as has been pointed out, the new clause is not about that; rather, it is about giving parents support and help with positive parenting. If it were accepted, it would be accompanied by a great deal of help, education and support; it cannot be introduced by itself overnight. There would be a change in climate and we would do all that we could to help and support parents. The message would be clear and the Government would be giving a clear lead on what is acceptable.
	At the heart of all this is the question, "What is in the child's best interest?" and taking a parent to court will almost always not be in their best interest. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that in Germany, where smacking was outlawed in 2000, it appears that no parents have been prosecuted since then. Early research suggests that there has already been a major shift in public opinion away from physical punishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) drew our attention to Sweden, where public opinion has changed. A Government have to lead, and the evidence from other countries shows that on this issue, public opinion has followed.
	This issue is also important for all those present who campaigned against domestic violence. When we campaigned in the 1970s, we were told that such legislation would be unworkable and that in any case, "She must have done something to deserve it." In the early days of Women's Aid, domestic violence was considered a trivial issue and we had to campaign to get it up the political agenda. Of course, there was also the question of not interfering in family life.

Sandra Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend. Does she agree that given that we have achieved zero tolerance of violence against women, children deserve the same?

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Our long experience of domestic violence issues has led us to a position of zero tolerance, and I am proud of the fact that only last week our Government introduced legislation on domestic violence.

David Taylor: Linking this issue back to the point made by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), is it not true that children who are smacked and subjected to violence at home are much more likely to be aggressive towards their siblings, to bully other children, to get involved in antisocial behaviour, to be violent to their future spouses and to commit violent crime?

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I certainly agree with him.
	Many of the arguments against the new clause that we have heard today we have been through before in other surroundings. Some people say that smacking does no harm, but there is evidence that it does. We are also told that such a provision would be unworkable.

Betty Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware of the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on clause 56? It says that the clause "perpetuates the current uncertainty" about what constitutes reasonable chastisement, and that as such, rather than reducing unfair and unnecessary prosecutions, as the Government suggest, it will simply encourage them.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I agree.
	We have an opportunity to increase protection for children. It is up to us to take a lead in this field, to think of the many children who have died at the hands of parents or carers, and to think of the step that we can take today to help to protect them in future.

Julie Kirkbride: I shall be very brief. Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), I should point out that those who support the new clause have not explained how banning the smacking of children and criminalising all parents will lead to a change in the number of tragic deaths of young children in the UK. There is simply no basis for the connection that has been made. People who are wicked enough to want to kill or sexually abuse a defenceless child are, in my opinion, beyond the realms of the law. No modest measure to say that all parents should not smack their children will influence their behaviour in any way. The case has not been made.
	I would not want to smack my child, but I do not want to criminalise other parents who might believe that it is an appropriate way of dealing with their children. I ask Members to think about circumstances in a supermarket, for example, where a parent smacks a child who has just destroyed a display. What are the staff supposed to do—bring in the police, corral the parents or what? What will happen if a child is upset about being smacked in the home and calls the police? They often do not turn up for a burglary, so are they to turn up because a child has protested about being smacked by their parent? It makes a nonsense of the law and I implore hon. Members to vote against the proposals of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).

Tim Loughton: We have had an interesting debate and it is good to see the Chamber so full. What a shame that it was less full earlier for other parts of the Bill with equally important provisions.
	As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, this is a highly contentious issue. The fact is that we are all here because we care about children and none of us—whichever side of the argument we stand on smacking—wants to bring about more harm to children than already exists. All those who have supported the Children Bill want tougher measures against the perpetrators of violence, such as that against Victoria Climbié, and let us not forget the other 80 children a year on average who are harmed by it. More importantly, we want to prevent violence from happening in the first place and give protection and better life chances to looked-after children. We want to do all of that with as little intrusion as possible into the private lives of decent, hard-working, loving families.
	This part of the Bill is a mess. I remind hon. Members that provisions on smacking were not in the original Bill and it is a shame that the issue has overshadowed coverage of the many important parts of this important Bill. In the Lords, the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Lester, cobbled together this amendment to criminalise smacking, despite his own party's policy, which is to criminalise it altogether. In the Commons, the Liberal Democrats supported a motion and will be whipped to defeat the amendment of their fellow Liberal Democrat peer. Labour peers were allowed a free vote in the House of Lords as long as it was to vote against the outright ban amendment.
	History is repeating itself in the Commons tonight. Here we have three choices. The first is to retain the Lester fudge or "middle way" amendment—

David Heath: rose—

Tim Loughton: I will not give way because I do not have time.
	The second option is to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield in favour of an outright ban. The third is to vote for the Isle of Wight amendment to return to the status quo. Only Conservative Members will decide the issue on the basis of a genuinely free vote this evening.
	We already have a good child protection record in this country, despite some high-profile cases. According to the UNICEF figures provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), we compare favourably in respect of the number of child deaths to other European countries, particularly Sweden. I am appalled at some of the speeches made in the debate and at some of the comments made outside the House, which suggest that a parent who in extremis smacks his or her child is only one step away from becoming a child abuser or killer—another Victoria Climbié case. That argument does not strengthen the case.
	The Children Bill is designed to improve the protection of children yet further. There is no research to prove the causal link between moderate smacking administered by loving parents and violent effects on children. Suggesting otherwise is insulting to decent families trying to bring up their children in difficult circumstances.
	As the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said when he was a Health Minister,
	"The overwhelming majority of parents know the difference between smacking and beating. They know how to ensure good social behaviour in a loving and caring way."
	Are we seriously suggesting that some parents get up each morning and pledge systematically to smack their child at least six times that day? It just does not happen like that.

Hilton Dawson: rose—

Tim Loughton: I will not give way.
	Smacking is a last resort if a child has failed to respond to anything else, especially if the child is causing harm to siblings or putting himself or others in danger.
	How are we to judge the amendments before us today? I believe that there are four criteria: whether there is a significant body of support for change; whether the law is working well as it stands; whether the proposals are workable and proportionate and whether there will be knock-on effects; and, finally, whether the relationship between the state and families will be undermined. There is support for change. We have heard about all sorts of opinion polls, the latest of which, from MORI, suggested that 85 per cent. of parents say that we should allow smacking to continue. Interestingly, 40 per cent. of people said enforcing a ban on smacking would be a waste of police time, and only 12 per cent. said it should be illegal in all circumstances.
	When the Government carried out their own consultation back in 2001, the Minister for Industry and the Regions—then a Health Minister—found that 70 per cent. of the public opposed a change in the law. She said:
	"We do not believe that any further change to the law at this time would be appropriate. It would neither command widespread public support nor be capable of consistent enforcement."
	The Prime Minister said:
	"Our position is that it is a matter of individual choice for parents and the Government believe that most parents accept and understand there is a difference between discipline and abuse."
	I do not see that there is overwhelming pressure for change.
	Is the law bust and do we need to fix it? Again, we have heard the figures: in the past three years, only 11 cases of reasonable chastisement have been pleaded in the courts, of which five brought acquittals. The Government themselves found that there was no improper use of the defence of reasonable chastisement. That is an important point. It is not as though there is a problem in the judicial system.

David Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton: May I go on to my third point about the workability and proportionality tests? Clause 56 and Lord Lester's amendment seem to have created an unholy alliance against them on the ground that they are unworkable; that includes children's charities, anti-smacking Members of Parliament and the police. The hon. Member for Wakefield cited the Association of Chief Police Officers. The "reddening of the skin" test is surely unworkable. What about children with sensitive skin, dermographia or medical conditions, and what about ethnic minority children? It would be a lawyers' paradise. The NSPCC says that clause 56 is likely to result in unfair and unnecessary prosecutions.
	Let us remember another deficiency in the Lester amendment, which is the idea that a battery can be committed without the victim suffering any kind of injury. Thus, any touching can constitute battery. It need not necessarily involve a harming of the body, and that can be shown by the fact that a battery can take place even if the victim did not feel the touching. Is that not disproportionate? Are we really saying that parents who smack their children could be prosecuted with up to a five-year jail term, as is proposed under the new clause?
	Surely any attempt to define smacking as a criminal offence or narrowly to define reasonable chastisement is fraught with difficulties. Scotland tried to do it, wanting to ban blows to the head, shaking, use of implements, and smacking for the under-twos. The Scots are now having to back-track. I have a good deal of sympathy with what they were trying to achieve, but are we not just creating an instruction manual for how to beat a child? Parents will be able to rush off to get the rule book to see what they are actually allowed to do.
	Trying to define severity by codifying the law on, for example, the duration and frequency of a smack or the child's personal characteristics is fraught with problems. What about the psychological punishment being meted out? How do we gauge that? Surely we should rely on the existing law, which has at least five tests—the prosecution of cruelty, wounding, grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and common assault—that can be applied to parents who really do go over the top.
	There will be a knock-on effect on professionals. The already stretched resources of police and social workers will be stretched yet further. Fear and confusion among parents will be exacerbated by the fact that the margin for error has greatly decreased and the custodial penalty massively increased—tenfold. A mother who makes a mistake about the precise interpretation of the law could face very serious consequences. If she commits actual bodily harm, the maximum penalty is five years in prison, but what is currently common assault has a maximum of six months in jail, and that is, in some cases, now to become actual bodily harm.
	It will be extremely easy to make false allegations about parents under the Government's proposals. It will be easy to make a serious criminal allegation against the parent whose child slips and bruises himself by accident. Many loving parents already fear being unjustly accused by neighbours or social workers, and the new proposals will add to their concerns. Parents may even be afraid to present their children at a doctor's surgery if they have marks in case they are accused of child abuse.
	The fourth and final test is whether the change would undermine family and children relationships. Will it promote undue intrusion by the state? Surely it will. It will mean undue intrusion by the state into the lives of decent, caring families who are trying to bring up their children as best they can, often in difficult circumstances. It is a legitimate concern that the changes proposed in the law would give rise to an unprecedented level of unnecessary and potentially damaging state intrusion where children are looked after well and are at no risk of abuse.
	One wonders where it will all end. There are many things that parents do to and for their children that it would be quite inappropriate, if not illegal, to do to another adult. Why pick just on smacking? Perhaps soon it will become illegal for parents to send a child to his room—imposing incarceration on another human individual.
	If the proposals fail to pass those four tests—I believe that they have so failed—the burden of proof that falls on the prosecution should be removed. The law should remain as it stands and we should return to the status quo. Those are the options before the House this evening. I know that Opposition Members will exercise their free vote in an intelligent manner and in the best interests of the welfare of children.

Margaret Hodge: I recognise the passionate feelings and views held by Members on both sides of the House and I appreciate that new clause 12 is an attempt to be constructive. However, the Government cannot support what amounts to an absolute ban on smacking.
	The Government's position remains unchanged: it is vital that we protect children from violence and abuse. The House will know that one of the driving forces behind the creation of my post and the development of this Bill is our determination to strengthen the way that society safeguards and protects its children. That is why we took seriously the representations from the children's charities and others to the effect that the defence of reasonable chastisement was being misused by parents who were harming their children. It is also why we supported a free vote in the House of Lords on Lord Lester's amendment, which would have removed the defence of reasonable chastisement for acts of actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or cruelty. It is for that reason that Labour Members will be offered a free vote on the matter tonight.
	I recognise that that does not go far enough for some hon. Members, who believe that the level of harm required by the offence is too great a threshold. However, actual bodily harm has been defined by the courts as any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort. That seems to me to offer quite broad protection. Clause 56 provides additional protection for children and tightens the existing law. Some of the cases in which there was a misuse of the reasonable chastisement defence would no longer be able to use that as a legal defence.
	It is nonsense and wrong to suggest that clause 56 would create a new loophole, or that it would legitimise acts of harm and abuse. It tightens the law but it does not change the standard of evidence needed to prove actual bodily harm or anything else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) suggested.
	Clause 56 provides additional protection for children but it does not criminalise parents for administering a light smack to their children. The Government are tightening up on a defence that was misused, but we are not creating a new offence, as to do so would be wrong. Actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and cruelty do not require that serious injury must be suffered. As the Attorney-General told the House of Lords, actual bodily harm is not confined to physical harm but can include psychological harm, for example.
	The Director of Public Prosecutions is reviewing charging standards and the Government are toughening the law. At present, when a decision is being made about whether to pursue charges, no regard is given to children's physical strength and vulnerability. That is what the DPP is considering, and changes that have regard to those matters should be welcomed.

David Hinchliffe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Margaret Hodge: No, because I do not have time.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been critical of Government on this matter, but it recognised the positive impact of clause 56 when it said in its report that
	"the combination of the new clause and the new charging standard may well be considered sufficient to satisfy the UK's obligation to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in A v. UK, because it makes the defence unavailable in relation to treatment or punishment which is contrary to article 3."
	It would be very odd, to say the least, if anyone who wanted to encourage parents to seek alternative forms of discipline voted to remove this clause.
	I turn now to new clause 12, which the Government cannot support. All hon. Members believe that it is vital to strengthen the safeguarding and protection of children, but it would be wrong to create a new offence by imposing a ban on smacking. That would leave parents wondering whether a trivial smack could land them in prison. We cannot deal with the misuse of a defence by creating a new, inappropriate and ill-conceived offence. There is a world of difference between a light smack and violence or abuse. We should recognise that the vast majority of parents understand that difference and would never harm their children deliberately. Some people argue that minor smacks will not be prosecuted, but the new clause would make smacking a crime, so there is no guarantee that that will be the case. It is for Parliament to be clear and to make the law. We cannot expect the Crown Prosecution Service to pick and choose which crimes it does, or does not, prosecute in the light of a clear statement by Parliament that all smacking should be a criminal offence. The confusing gap between the effect of the new clause and the claims made by its proponents, as well as the fact that the Government simply do not believe that every single instance of parental smacking should be treated as a criminal offence, have led to our decision not to offer a free vote. No one decides lightly to smack a child, and most people feel bad and guilt-ridden about doing so. They believe that they have failed if they resort to smacking, but do hon. Members really believe that we can support good parenting by adding to those bad feelings by threatening the strong arm of the law? Is not a better way of changing the culture positively to encourage and support good parenting in the home? That is what our Sure Start programme aims to do, as do the children's fund, through many projects that it supports, and the parenting fund. We want to offer more support to good parents.
	I turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I recognise the reasoning of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in calling for a review of the effects of clause 56 once it has been in operation for two years. I agree wholeheartedly that when significant extra legal protection is introduced by the clause we should look closely at its practical effects. I am afraid, however, that her amendment does not meet its intended objective. None the less, I can give a clear commitment that two years after clause 56 comes into effect we will review the practical consequences of those changes to the law, and will also seek parents' views about smacking. We will lay a copy of the results before Parliament.
	This important debate has rightly engendered much passion in all parts of the House. I understand and respect the sincerity and strength of the views of all hon. Members, but I urge them to consider that while we want to stop the misuse of a defence that could lead to children being harmed or abused—I believe that clause 56 achieves that aim—we do not want to be responsible for introducing a new offence that could criminalise thousands of parents throughout the country who are trying their hardest to do their best for their children. They love and cherish their children, and want to establish a framework of discipline while protecting them from harm and endeavouring to support their well-being. They try their hardest to get it right.
	A total ban on smacking could criminalise most parents. That is surely not what we are about. Let us focus on the important job of safeguarding and protecting children who are in real danger of harm and abuse. Let us support parents in that most difficult and important job of bringing up their children. Let us legislate in a clear and practical way, which will properly benefit children and young people. I urge hon. Members to accept clause 56 and reject new clause 12.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 424.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 37, line 18, leave out clause 56.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Functions of Commissioner in Northern Ireland

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 5, line 36 after 'promoting', insert 'awareness of'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Clause 27
	 — 
	       Responsibility for functions under sections 25 and 26

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 21, line 17, leave out 'sections 25 and 26' and insert 'section 25'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Clause 51
	 — 
	Ascertaining children's wishes

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 36, line 18, after 'wishes', insert 'and feelings'.
	No. 22, in page 36, line 21, after 'wishes', insert 'and feelings'.
	No. 29, in page 36, line 22, at end insert—
	'(2)   In section 20 of that Act (provision of accommodation for children: general), in subsection (6)(a) and (b), after "wishes" insert "and feelings".
	(3)   In section 47 of that Act (local authority's duty to investigate), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(5A)   For the purposes of making a determination under this section as to the action to be taken with respect to a child, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child's welfare—
	(a)   ascertain the child's wishes and feelings regarding the action to be taken with respect to him; and
	(b)   give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain."'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Clause 64
	 — 
	Regulations and orders

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 42, line 11, at end insert—
	'(3A)   The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing the first order under section [payments to foster parents] unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
	No. 42, in page 42, line 14, after 'apply,', insert—
	'(aa)   an order made by the Secretary of State under section [payments to foster parents] to which subsection (3A) does not apply,'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Clause 65
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 43, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	'(   )   section 47 and Schedule 4 so far as relating to England come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State, and so far as relating to Wales in accordance with provision made by order by the Assembly;
	(   )   section [payments to foster parents] comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
	(   )   sections 48 to 55 so far as relating to England come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State, and so far as relating to Wales in accordance with provision made by order by the Assembly;'.—[Margaret Hodge.]

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Children's Commissioner

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 44, line 19, at end insert—
	'(1A)   The Secretary of State must, to such extent and in such manner as he thinks fit, involve children in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner.'.—[Margaret Hodge.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We are approaching the end of the Bill's passage through the House. It is a significant moment. I am pleased to reflect on a process in which there has been a great deal of constructive engagement from hon. Members of all parties who have brought their wide experience, intellect and attention to detail to our deliberations and the Bill has benefited greatly from that.
	When the measure was introduced in the House of Lords in March, it was widely and warmly welcomed in and outside Parliament. Many people have waited a long time for the measure. The Bill has acted as a vehicle for important discussion of an exceptionally wide range of issues that are important to children's lives and the outcomes that they achieve. Throughout, there has been a wide consensus about the value and importance of the reforms that we are making. Baroness Howarth of Breckland came up with the catch phrase:
	"It is a small Bill with a large heart".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1287.]
	It is slightly larger now and, thanks to this House and the other place, its heart beats even more strongly.
	The Government's plans for the commissioner have been well tested during the parliamentary process, and I pay tribute to the parliamentarians and lobbyists who have campaigned for the creation of a commissioner for such a long time. The Government are confident that the Bill, enhanced by the amendments that the House has agreed today, is the best way forward. We will have a strong champion for children with a powerful, independent and manageable role, which will allow them to be an important voice on children's behalf. We intend the commissioner to be appointed early next year, and I am pleased to say that we are involving children and young people in the appointment process. My ministerial colleagues and I look forward to working with the commissioner.
	Part 2 of the Bill contains a range of duties and powers for local agencies, which will establish clear lines of accountability for children's services and lead to better arrangements for safeguarding children and planning, commissioning and delivering services. I was pleased that the Standing Committee agreed a Government amendment to introduce the children and young people's planning requirement, which is an important rationalisation of the planning burdens on local authorities and which will be another lever to encourage more effective outcomes in planning, commissioning and delivering services.
	The Bill allows us to set up universal information databases, which have attracted considerable attention. I repeat that those databases will in no way be a substitute for action, and I hope that they will provide a valuable tool to help practitioners work together better so that they can more easily identify children and meet their needs.
	In response to parliamentary scrutiny, we have made some helpful amendments. The Bill now contains clear descriptions of the information that will be on the database and the agencies that may access it. Crucially, it includes the reassurance that the databases will not include details of case information.
	Last week, we published our first consultation document on the difficult issues around the cause for concern and sensitive services. In developing the regulations and guidance, it will be important to respond to the issues raised by the consultation, to continue to learn from the work of the trailblazers and to take into account the issues and concerns that have been raised legitimately during the passage of the Bill. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken pains to ensure that we are aware of the importance of getting the Bill right and of the many things that we must avoid getting wrong.
	We have spent a lot of time today debating aspects of the latter parts of the Bill, and hon. Members know that some significant improvements have been made. Today, we have introduced a power to establish a minimum fostering allowance, which is an important step that has been welcomed on both sides of the House. We have amended the Children Act 1989 to ensure that children's feelings, as well as their wishes, are taken into account when assessing their needs in a range of circumstances.
	We have responded to hon. Members' concerns by enabling changes to be made to the rules of court, which will help us to represent our constituents without getting into contempt of court, and I am grateful for the work that has been done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
	The passage of the Bill marks the beginning of the important programme of change for children to which the Government are committed. As I have said many times, the Bill provides a legislative framework, rather than all the answers, to improve outcomes for children.
	Our purpose is to maximise opportunity and minimise risk; to enhance opportunity for every child; to work to close the gap between those who succeed and those who achieve less well; to make sure that every child matters; and to support our resolve to do all we can to prevent children such as Victoria Climbié from falling through the net and dying at the hands of adults in whose care they have been entrusted.
	But it is what happens at the local level, on the ground, that will make a real difference to the lives of children, young people and their families. What will count is our work over the coming months and years with all those who provide services for children at the front line, from strategic agencies to individual practitioners. Our task is to build on the framework created by the Bill to reconfigure our services so that we shift our efforts to prevention while strengthening the safeguarding and protection of children; change services and organise them around the needs of the child, not of the professionals; and ensure that the voice of children and young people lies at the heart of all that we do.
	This is a great Bill that will help us to create a step change for children. I commend it to the House.

Tim Loughton: We are pleased to support the Bill that we are about to pass on Third Reading. That has been the case throughout, although we have had vigorous debates and remain concerned about some of the details.
	We support the Bill in order to support vulnerable children and to promote the life chances of looked-after children, too many of whom are left behind. I hope that we can do that in a way that does not intrude too much into the private family lives of those many children who are fortunate enough not to be described as vulnerable. I also hope that we have added safeguards to the Bill in relation to the independence from Government of certain of the new systems that are being set up and ensuring a more joined-up approach by the professionals that is at the heart of what we need to achieve.
	The Minister said that this is a great Bill. That may be slightly over-egging it, but it is a very important Bill. As Lord Laming said, it was wholly unacceptable that there had been some 40 predecessors to his report on Victoria Climbié in as many years. We were failing too many children, and the message from Lord Laming was that things must be different. All hon. Members who have participated in the passage of the Bill would subscribe to that.
	The Committee could be described as the testimonial of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). He contributed to it with his usual well-informed demeanour and, when responding to me, cantankerousness. We respect and admire that, and we will miss him greatly when children's legislation comes before the House in future. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friends, for their well-informed contributions.
	Debate in Committee was sometimes fiery, particularly when the Minister talked about parental access. We saw that again today—fireworks from the Minister three days before Guy Fawkes night. However, the subject will not lie down. It is not a bandwagon on to which the Opposition have opportunistically climbed, but a very serious issue that is blighting the lives of too many decent parents around the country, and it deserves to be treated with rather more respect and seriousness than the Minister has shown in Committee and in this Chamber. Her comments may well come back to haunt her and will not be appreciated by many thousands of fathers and mothers who feel that they are being shut out of their children's lives.
	I congratulate the Government on some of the later additions on foster allowances and look forward to the emergence of details on how that can become a practical reality. We sensed that the door was opening a tiny bit further in regard to a private fostering registration scheme, but we shall have to wait patiently for that. We particularly welcome the amendments that the Government accepted today on the wishes and feelings of children.
	The Standing Committee was the first on which I had ever served in which I had my amendments hijacked. Quite a few that were accepted by the Government started off as Conservative amendments; mysteriously, the name of the Minister—or, today, the Secretary of State—then appeared on them. We are delighted that the Government have seen fit to support Conservative amendments, but it is slightly odd that they had to try to hijack them in that way.
	There are certain outstanding problems in the Bill; we make no issue about that. The independence of the children's commissioner still needs to be proven, and the "big ears, no teeth" tag will still concern their lordships when the Bill returns to the upper House. The relationships between the English children's commissioner and those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will also present various problems that we shall have to review. One of my biggest concerns relates to the operation of the database. That provision still needs an awful lot more work and thinking out, because it represents a radical change to the way in which we account for our citizens, and many people will be concerned about its implications.
	The structures that we have put in place in the Bill, the new people with titles, the tsars and the committees all sound very fine, but they will be as nothing unless there are well-trained professionals on the ground—social workers, teachers, school nurses, police officers and everyone else—who are properly informed, know what to look out for and work practically with each other to share that information safely in the interests of vulnerable children. The real test will not be what the Bill says but whether the people out there on the ground, whose job is to put it into action every day of the week, every week of the year, are able to do that; if, indeed, they are there to do it at all, because we still suffer from an enormous shortage of those dedicated people.
	I was very pleased with our debate on promoting the educational achievement of looked-after children, which has been a scandal for far too long. We all agreed that it was a scandal, and that urgent action was required to address it. I hope that some of the practical measures in the Bill will begin to do so.
	It is absolutely right that the Government should involve children as much as possible in making the provisions work. That is what the Bill is all about, and why we have all signed up to it. If it works, I hope that it will serve to re-engender some faith in the system among those children who have been left behind or left vulnerable for too long.
	It is now four and a half years since the tragic, horrendous and unimaginable death of Victoria Climbié, but we should not forget that an average of 80 children suffer similarly at the hands of parents or carers each year without hitting the headlines. We need to reduce that figure, and we hope that the Bill will go some way towards achieving that. Lord Laming's report said that we needed to take urgent action now, and that his recommendations could not be
	"deferred to some bright tomorrow."
	That was absolutely right, and I hope that the Bill will represent an important step towards ensuring that this problem is addressed now. If it works, it will be a fitting tribute not only to Victoria Climbié but to all the other victims of horrendous abuse, whose abusers should never have been allowed to get away with what they did. We hope that they will not be allowed to do so in the future.

Hilton Dawson: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for pointing out to the Whips that, although I have lost count of the number of times I have voted against the Government on the Bill, I have still been really nasty to the Opposition. I trust that that will ease my passage through the last few months of my dotage in the House of Commons, although I must point out that the Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into the family court system starts next week.
	Despite my recent voting record, this is a good Bill, which presages a tremendous future for children in this country. I hope that it leads to a future of child-centred services, integrated services, co-operative services and, as the hon. Gentleman said, a future in which many more workers on the ground come together, are respected and valued for the work that they do, and are enthused and inspired by the Bill to produce even better work for children in the future.
	In all of our discussions, we have all been guilty of tending to think of children as a great object of concern, while ignoring their dynamic and creative potential. We have had a great deal of discussion about the rights and wrongs of the children's commissioner. The Bill has been amended one way or the other, but I believe that it provides a huge opportunity for children and young people to take the commissioner and children's services wherever they will. We now have one person and, I presume, an office, who will be responsive to the agenda not of the Government or Parliament, but of children and young people. That will take children and young people—and eventually this whole country—in directions that perhaps we do not fully understand, as I believe that children and young people know things that we do not know, that they can engage with their peers in ways that we cannot, that they are the future of this country and that the experience of having a children's commissioner will allow them to lead and eventually take over the running of this country in directions at which we can only hint.
	We have let the genie out of the bottle with this Bill, which is a good thing and a real achievement. In time, that may lead us all to say that this was a great Children Act.

Annette Brooke: We have been really pleased to be able to work on this legislation and, I hope, to contribute positively to the debate. It is always a matter of great pride to participate in making legislation that one believes can make a real difference—in this case, to children's lives.
	Throughout consideration on this Bill, we have made much of the fact that we all need to listen to children. We cannot remind ourselves of that too often. Listening to children imposes on us the responsibility of not letting them down. Undoubtedly, we, collectively, have let many children down over the years. A core part of the Bill involving adults relates to the quality and quantity of staff and the training that is needed. Most importantly, if we are to learn the lessons of the past, we must achieve real multi-agency working and common practices, so that people are not compartmentalising and going home because they have done their bit, resulting in somebody being left out of the equation.
	I welcome the amendment on wishes and feelings. The all-party children group, with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), arranged an excellent presentation not long ago in which we witnessed children's feelings. It was important to realise that children who might not be able to articulate their wishes could express anger, sorrow and so on. I congratulate the Minister yet again on introducing the minimum fostering allowance, which has been very important.
	I want to express a few regrets. Are we really saying that every child matters if we still have asylum seekers' children in detention centres? We have children in prison. This very day, people are calling for a special inquiry into Joseph Scholes's death. We still have a lot to do, and it would have been good to reflect concern for those most vulnerable children in the Bill.
	On a slightly different tack, I thank the Minister very much for writing to me about the proposed guardianship arrangements. I was extremely pleased to learn that the Government were in the early stages of reviewing existing arrangements for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, to establish whether they needed to be changed. That was heartening, because we had said a lot about asylum seekers' children and it gave us a ray of hope.
	We have had a great deal to say about the children's commissioner, and I am sure we will return to the subject when the Bill returns to this House. Obviously, we have concerns about new clause 12, but overall I agree with other Members that so much in the Bill is good that we want to express our support clearly and loudly.
	I also want to thank everyone who served on the Committee, because it was a pleasant Committee on which to serve.

Jonathan R Shaw: What I hope we will gain from the Bill is a service that will look forward in assessing the difficulties and challenges involved in children's and parents' services. "Parents" is a word that is not mentioned often enough, and I would have preferred this to be called the Children and Parents Bill or the Children and Carers Bill.
	The Bill looks forward to the shaping of children's and family services, rather than looking back. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, all too often in the past inquiries have looked back on tragic events. Under the Bill there will be an annual report to Parliament, and those of us who are members of the Education and Skills Committee look forward to receiving it. There will be a robust exchange, and it will happen every year. In the past we have had to wait for inquiries on the cases of, for instance, Victoria Climbié, Maria Colwell and Jasmine Beckford.
	Sterling work was clearly done in Committee. I congratulate members of the Standing Committee, and regret that I was not able to serve on it.
	I am proud of the work that the Government have done on this and a range of other Bills. Since I entered the House in 1997, successive Bills relating to children have improved existing legislation and increased protection. Nevertheless, we need to focus our energies on helping parents with vulnerable children. It is the hard-to-reach parents whom we need to draw into the services that we want to provide. Often we start to engage such parents only in tragic circumstances, and sometimes they are forced to become involved through parenting orders. Research relating to such orders is positive, but we want parents to become engaged voluntarily rather than in a punitive context. Let us hope that the children's commissioner will concern himself not just with children but with the people with whom they spend most of their time—the people who shape their lives. Those people are, of course, their parents.

Hywel Williams: I pay tribute to all who have contributed to our debates on the Bill. We have had an interesting, enjoyable, occasionally funny and very challenging experience, and I am sure that I am a better man for it.
	Let me make a serious point. It is our highest duty to ensure that children are better protected, and to enhance their lives. I think that the Bill will achieve that, although not to the extent that I had hoped. I know that other members of the Welsh Affairs Committee will share my disappointment about the Children's Commissioner for Wales, and that my hon. Friends who concerned themselves with clause 56 will agree that we shall have to return to issues that are important and will not go away.
	There is, however, much to welcome in the Bill. I particularly welcome the measures relating to CAFCASS—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—in Wales, which are long overdue and have been demanded in the past by many Members, including me. I also welcome the changes to fostering allowances. I became involved in child care many years ago, when it was very difficult to recruit foster parents. I hope that this change will lead to better recruitment and better foster services.
	Therefore, I welcome what is positive in the Bill. I want to make it clear that I am committed to revisiting those issues that I, my hon. Friends and other hon. Members think are important. The Bill is an opportunity to make a real change to children's lives. That is something that we can all be proud of.

Julie Morgan: I want briefly to say how pleased I was to serve on the Committee that considered the Bill and how pleased I am to support the Bill on Third Reading. I had my differences with the Minister, particularly over the issues of physical chastisement and the relationship between the Welsh and English children's commissioners, but those subjects have had a good airing and, overall, I support the Bill strongly.
	I want in particular to say how pleased I am that CAFCASS is transferring to Wales. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Children, Young People and Families have put a lot of work into bringing that about. That will be a great step forward and it is welcomed by the work force in Wales. We did not have much debate about that because it is universally accepted.
	Therefore, I am pleased to say that I support the Bill. I think that it will take the protection of children forward and I look forward to seeing its implementation in the years ahead.

Roger Williams: I, too, congratulate the Minister on introducing a Bill that is accepted as a real improvement in terms of how children are looked after and welfare is promoted. Hon. Members from Wales have mentioned the devolution of CAFCASS to Wales. That issue has not had much coverage because the move has been universally welcomed. Although CAFCASS has had its difficulties in recent times, we all hope that, under the new leadership, it will be able to achieve the aspirations that many had when it was set up. The people who work for CAFCASS in Wales welcome the challenge of adapting it and ensuring that it is appropriate to the needs of children and families in Wales. Hugh Patrick, a constituent of mine with a long history of involvement in children's welfare issues, who is now a union representative for people working for CAFCASS, has assured me that staff are ready, willing and wanting to take up that challenge.
	There have been disappointments. The Minister and I and other hon. Members have had our arguments over the role of the English and Welsh commissioners. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs undertook considerable, lengthy pre-legislative scrutiny in good faith. It is disappointing that the Government could not accept the representations that we made, but I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales on the way in which he has made the present arrangements work. He has been instrumental in many cases, working with the commissioner in Wales, looking at his recommendations and taking them to other Ministers and Government Departments here. I assure him that we will want to make the arrangements, which we regard as inadequate, work well for children in Wales, too.
	It is in that spirit that all hon. Members have taken part in the Standing Committee and in the debates on Report. We all commend the Bill and sincerely hope that there will be the great improvement in children's welfare that we all desire.

Margaret Hodge: I want to thank everyone, if I may. I thank our Committee Chairmen for the estimable way in which they chaired our proceedings, and all the members on both sides of the Committee for the positive contribution that they made. Even where we disagreed and had some debate, it was all in good spirit. I particularly thank my fellow Ministers, who are incredibly busy people, for the time they gave to supporting me during the proceedings on the Bill, and the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who played an estimable role in ensuring that we all kept to order. I also want to thank the many Back Benchers who served with us, some of whom spoke today. Others who were not called had, I know, prepared contributions to this important debate. I want to thank the parliamentary officials—
	It being 7 o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Wednesday 3rd November—
	(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions relating to Members' Allowances, Parliamentary Pensions (Contributions Rate) and Parliamentary Pensions (Survivor Benefits and Early Retirement) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and
	(2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to Sessional Orders and Resolutions not later than Seven o'clock, or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Margaret Moran.]

HEALTH SERVICES (GOSPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]

Peter Viggers: May I thank Mr. Speaker, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to raise this evening on the Floor of the House the issue of health care on the Gosport peninsula? The subject has been forced to the centre of our concerns in Gosport because of the Ministry of Defence's decision in December 1998 to close the Royal hospital Haslar, which is the only military hospital left in the United Kingdom. The local population greeted this decision with dismay and I proposed a rally and a march to the hospital—it involved 22,000 people—to express their view that the hospital should be retained.
	The cause of the problem is that the MOD is seeking to disengage from hospital management, which is in stark contrast with the approach of Governments in other countries, who are building up—or at least maintaining—their defence medical services. Faced with a tremendous shortfall in key faculties in general surgery, anaesthetics, orthopaedic surgery and general medicine, the Government have taken the most peculiar decision to close the one remaining military hospital, at Haslar, and to develop a centre of military excellence elsewhere.
	I maintain that in this area, more than any other, what we need is joined-up Government and the maintenance of links between the MOD and the national health service, but I am afraid that this Government have resolutely refused to provide that. In fact, although the Under-Secretary of State for Defence kindly invited me to his office, the purpose of the invitation was to tell me in clear terms that the MOD is absolutely determined to withdraw from Haslar not later than 31 March 2007. So, it is clear that the Government are determined to press ahead.
	However, there is no doubt that Haslar hospital will be needed after March 2007, because the proposed development of Queen Alexandra hospital, Cosham, which is the subject of a private finance initiative bid, will not be completed by that date. Secondly, military medicine is still strong at Haslar and has much to offer in the context of the new hospital arrangements in south Hampshire, even after the development of Queen Alexandra hospital. Haslar still has 33 Field hospital. It has advanced telemedicine, a clinical measurement department, echocardiograms, cardiac systems and neurophysiological systems; such provision is not available at the proposed new location in Birmingham. If satisfactory arrangements can be made for the conjunction and joint use of Haslar with Queen Alexandra hospital, defence medicine would have a lot to gain and a lot to offer.
	Military medicine is currently in a very sad state and there is a shortage in every specialty. The proposal was to move from Haslar to a new centre of defence medicine. At one point, the idea was jointly to involve Guy's and St. Thomas' hospitals in London. Then, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford was considered; indeed, Newcastle was also considered. Eventually, Birmingham was chosen and the decision was taken to spend £200 million on a new centre of defence medicine at Selly Oak hospital. Doing so would also allow military personnel to use the very good facilities at Birmingham university. Unfortunately, the Government ran out of money. The £200 million development was cancelled and, among other things, the admiral in charge of the project resigned from the Navy, rather than put through a project that he thought unworkable. Currently, armed forces personnel are left billeted out in twos and threes in small groups all around Birmingham. Some live in a YWCA hospital, some in a former hostel for the homeless. There is no real centre for defence medicine. The plans have collapsed, and so has the ethos of defence medical services.
	The Ministry of Defence defiantly says that recruitment is satisfactory, but retention of trained doctors is at an abysmal level to the extent that the shortage of trained medical staff is a factor in troop deployment. We have to rely on other nations, particularly the Americans who, unlike us, give medical back-up a priority. If hospital and secondary care can be sorted out in Portsmouth and the Gosport peninsula, defence medicine could have a future in the south Hampshire area even now.
	The civilian aspects, which are the main subject of my Adjournment debate this evening, are dominated by the construction of the new Queen Alexandra hospital at Corsham and the MOD's intention to close the Haslar hospital. The local population has consistently showed over the past six years complete determination in wanting Haslar to continue as a hospital providing local services. As a result of that determination, a consultation was undertaken by the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority, which resulted in changes being announced in January 2000.
	The announcement was as follows:
	"The new Haslar Accident Treatment Centre will replace the RH Haslar accident and emergency department. This will treat . . . an estimated 17,500 per year . . . It will open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and will be staffed by emergency nurse practitioners."
	It continued:
	"Day surgery will be provided on the Haslar site for many patients in good general health—an estimated 1,100 cases a year. The day surgery will include general surgery, orthopaedics, gynaecology and urology. Diagnostic services, including x-ray facilities, and investigations will be provided at Haslar. Outpatient clinics on the Gosport peninsula will be increased so that around 5,000 more patients a year than at present will be seen at either Haslar or Gosport War Memorial Hospital. It is expected that there will be more than 100 clinics a week in over 20 specialties."
	That is an outline of the proposals advanced by the health authority in 2000. The Haslar taskforce, which I formed and have chaired from the beginning, reluctantly went along with those proposals, believing that it was the best that could reasonably be expected. We were somewhat reluctant to lose in-patients but felt that Haslar could at least survive as a major hospital and perhaps even expand in due course.
	We formerly had a primary care trust both for Gosport and for Fareham, then a Fareham and Gosport PCT, and now a Fareham and Gosport PCT that shares its executive with an another PCT—not a happy scene. That PCT has now put forward two revised proposals, both of which involve having a community hospital at Fareham. The main difference between the two is that the first proposal has one key idea—the retention of the Haslar cross-link to provide various facilities, including an accident treatment centre, out-patients, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The alternative proposal would have similar facilities, but provided at the Gosport War Memorial hospital. It would expand the Gosport health centre to provide an accident treatment centre, out-patients, minor surgery and more diagnostics. Both alternatives include the Fareham community hospital, but only one would retain Haslar with the other developing the Gosport War Memorial hospital.
	Haslar is a major hospital. It is a former district general hospital equivalent and it deals with out-patients, has an accident treatment centre, a breast unit, 5,000 gastroenterology cases a year, a first-class X-ray department, including an magnetic resonance imaging scanner and ultra-sound. Its diagnostic and treatment centre is very successful, having succeeded in reducing waiting lists for operations in the area. It is a busy and successful hospital. Support for Haslar in the community has not wavered. People respect its superb facilities and its staff and they admire the way that nurses march at Haslar. It is a military hospital and it retains the ethos and spirit of the area, which has very much a military flavour in south Hampshire. Haslar is an outstandingly good hospital and people want it to be retained.
	Gosport War Memorial hospital, on the other hand, is a former cottage hospital. When it was a cottage hospital, it was proposed that it should close, and we all campaigned to keep it open. While we did that—this shows how fashions change in medicine—it suddenly became fashionable to have a community hospital, so it was expanded to become one, and it is also much loved. However, it is a small hospital on a site that is already quite congested. Car parking is really quite difficult and it would not take further expansion.
	The one thing that is not mentioned in the latest consultation document by the primary care trust—in the shorter version, certainly—is money. What I most fear is that the comparison between the two proposals will not be dealt with like for like, but handled entirely on the matter of money. The primary care trust, on advice, has concluded that for the Haslar alternative, economic assessment capital over 30 years would cost £93.038 million, risk adjusted, net present value—that is the way these things are assessed. The War Memorial hospital option would cost £75.318 million on the same basis. In capital terms, it is maintained that Haslar would cost £13 million, which would need to be paid to the Ministry of Defence, and £14.9 million in capital cost. The War Memorial hospital would cost £3.594 million, plus £2.6 million for replacing the health centre, where there might be some capital offset through a lift project. There would also be some £23.6 million for the community hospital at Fareham under both plans.
	Where do we go from here? Hampshire county council's scrutiny committee, which is charged by statute to look at local plans, will meet on 26 November, and I look forward to being there to discuss the issue. The Fareham and Gosport primary care trust plans to make its final decision on 15 December.
	I do not believe that those making the judgments are comparing like with like. Gosport War Memorial was a cottage hospital; it has been expanded and is a busy site, and it will not take further expansion. Car parking is a problem. Haslar is a large, airy, superb location. It is a former district general hospital. There is room for change and expansion. Excellent equipment is in place and it has the suites of operating facilities that will be needed. Portsmouth and South East Hampshire hospitals trust concluded in 2000, and again in 2002, that Haslar would be needed. We simply cannot believe that it will be possible to manage in future with fewer operating theatres and fewer beds. There is an absolute and widespread conviction that Haslar is needed, and my plea from Gosport is that consultation should be genuine. Our wish is to retain Haslar hospital, and I ask the Minister to support that proposal.

Melanie Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing this debate on health services in the Gosport peninsula. Before I turn to the specific issues that he raised, I pay tribute to the work of all the staff in the Fareham and Gosport area and the role that they play in delivering quality services. All Members rightly attach the highest importance to national health service developments in their own constituencies. It is important that local people can have local access to high-quality health services. The hon. Gentleman is obviously demonstrating his interest in the subject by raising this debate.
	I begin by looking at the context of this matter. Our NHS improvement plan set out a challenging 10-year programme for reform. As part of that, we want services to be accessible, flexible and designed around the needs of local patients. The policy of devolution gives local communities an opportunity to plan and develop health services according to their needs and demands and we have backed that up with significant funding.
	Overall, there will be an average year-on-year increase in England of 7 per cent., over and above inflation. There will be an increase of £34 million in total budgets between 2003–04 and 2007–08, and more than 75 per cent. of that will go directly to PCTs. That means that we are putting resources in the hands of people in the front line of the NHS, alongside their responsibilities for developing and running services.
	Fareham and Gosport PCT, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gosport, will receive an increase in revenue allocation of £41 million between 2003–04 and 2005–06. That represents a cash increase of 30 per cent. However, to achieve our goal of modernising the NHS, many NHS economies and organisations are considering, with their local stakeholders, changes to the way in which they organise their services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that hospital services need to change if we are to continue to fulfil patients' needs and improve access. Services cannot remain static forever, but must be responsive to local needs.
	In Fareham and Gosport, work is already under way to plan health services fit for the future. Central to these plans is the major private finance initiative to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That scheme will mean a redevelopment of hospital services in Portsmouth, focusing on the current Queen Alexandra hospital site in Cosham. Once the new hospital is completed, all acute in-patient services will move there. It will be the main acute site for the whole of south-east Hampshire.
	The rebuilding of the Queen Alexandra hospital and the reorganisation of its services mean that the local NHS has a unique opportunity to look afresh at what it does, and from where. As the hon. Gentleman noted, in October last year, the local PCT commenced a project to review the health needs of the local population and develop a strategy to provide services to meet those needs over the next five years and beyond. That work included a needs assessment, site feasibility studies, analysis of patient activity data and a bed census.
	In March, as a result of that work, three broad options were offered for further consideration. They were discussed at various informal meetings, eight of which were held in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In addition, five staff briefings were held.
	The PCT is now undertaking a comprehensive and thorough consultation process that gives local people an opportunity to make their views known and to shape local health services. All that is in line with the Government's policy and principles, outlined in the document, "Keeping the NHS Local".
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, two main proposals are being consulted on. He has gone through them already, so I shall not outline them again. However, the dispersed model provides new buildings for services when and where they need replacing, while the community hospitals model develops community hospitals as the hub of health services, in both Fareham and Gosport. Common to both models is the building of a new Fareham community hospital, and of new premises for an existing GP practice.
	The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the future of the Royal Hospital Haslar. I am aware that it has been a subject of discussion locally for many years. As he knows, the Ministry of Defence will vacate the hospital in 2007. The former Portsmouth and South East health authority gave a commitment in 2000, following public consultation, to develop a substantial facility at Haslar, subject to MOD agreement to the use of the site. The new hospital will offer day surgery, diagnostic and out-patient facilities, operative clinics and accident treatment.
	That commitment was subsequently reiterated in a letter sent to the hon. Gentleman in January last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), who is now Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety but who at the time was a Minister in the Department of Health. The local NHS has therefore been in discussions with the MOD about the potential use of part of the site for the provision of those services. The MOD identified two potential locations on the site of the Royal Hospital Haslar on which to develop a range of services—the crosslink block and the undeveloped area on the periphery of the site. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the latter option was excluded after public feedback this summer. The use of the crosslink block remains under public consultation, but the proposal brings with it, as he outlined, a substantial capital cost accruing from the purchase of the site and the necessary adaptations. The NHS has a duty to use public money wisely, and must therefore consider other options. The future of the Royal Hospital Haslar cannot be looked at in isolation, and the NHS has a responsibility to look at a range of options to ensure that primary and secondary services meet the needs of local patients and fit with wider plans for modernisation.
	The precise configuration of services is under consultation, and we are in discussions on the matter. All the services currently provided by the Royal Hospital Haslar, including therapies, diagnostics and out-patient services, will still be provided locally, but the location of those services has yet to be decided. The NHS in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight remains committed to the pattern of services for the population of Gosport and Fareham agreed after the 2000 consultation, but their precise nature is under debate. It would be inappropriate to speculate about the outcome of the present consultation, which does not end formally until 8 November next week. Locally, the NHS has been in discussions with the MOD about the use of the site and I have already outlined the two options and their consequences. The arrangements for those discussions, as well as discussions with other partners, are the responsibility of a local partnership board, which will make sure that the quality and continuity of health services for the people of Gosport, Fareham and the south-east Hampshire area are not affected in the event of a delay, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in completing the redevelopment of the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham. The MOD has given assurances that sufficient time will be allowed for the Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority, the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and the Fareham and Gosport primary care trust to decide future requirements for the Haslar site and ensure that patients continue to receive the highest possible standard of health care over that period.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke extensively about the role of the MOD, but he will understand that I can only comment from the perspective of the Department of Health. I was pleased to hear that he has had discussions with my colleagues in the MOD, even though I detected a note of frustration—the future of health services on the Gosport peninsula is obviously an issue of great concern to him. As I have mentioned, it is our policy that the local NHS should decide the priorities for the NHS locally, including decisions on the location of services. That is where specific local knowledge and expertise lies, and it is not appropriate for Ministers to decide on the direction of travel and how services should be configured, as we have made clear.
	There is a discussion to be had about the relative merits of the different options with regard to the cost to the local economy. Money deployed on a more expensive option would mean less for other services. Local people need to have that discussion with the local health service. That process is going on, and the meeting on 15 December, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is part of that. We have made it clear that it is best for that local knowledge and those local decisions to come into play through local decision making.
	The health community in Fareham and Gosport has set out its proposals for change to a number of the key health services to improve the quality and the range of services for local people. That is an opportunity for local people to influence the debate by responding to the consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman continues to work with the local NHS to build a better future for residents in his area and that he urges local people to respond to the consultation so that they have a say in the provision of local health services.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock.